THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2953 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants- petitioners against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1543/1999. The petitioners in the O.P. are the legal representatives of the deceased Vinod Kumar, they being the parents, sister and brothers of the deceased. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased Vinod Kumar was working as a scooter mechanic. He was not married and was contributing his total income for the maintenance of the family. On 23.09.1999, the deceased was on test ride of a scooter, at that time, lorry belonging to the first respondent bearing No.KA29-2582 came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the scooter, on account of which, the deceased died. They claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed a counter contending that it is not liable and the petitioners must have to prove that the lorry driver had valid driving licence and the policy said to have been issued by the respondent was in force and that the compensation claimed is high. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident which took place on 23.09.1999 resulting in death of P.Vinod Kumar was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s lorry bearing No.KA 29 2582 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the accident. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,000/-. But, held that the second respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, as the vehicle involved in the accident had no fitness certificate on the date of accident, and the fitness certificate expired on 09.09.1999, i.e., about 14 days prior to the accident that took place on 24.09.1999. Aggrieved by the quantum and the above finding that the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation, the claimants filed the present appeal. 5. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court below has not taken proper income of the deceased into consideration and the deductions towards personal expenditure are also not properly done, thereby granted lesser compensation. He further contends that there is no material on record to show that the vehicle involved in the accident had no existing fitness certificate as on the date of accident, that the law does not require for granting compensation there shall be existing fitness certificate. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 7. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.2,500/- per month and out of that 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier ‘12’ was applied. I see no irregularity in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month as he was only 19 years old boy for which also there is no authentic evidence, he might have been aged less also. He was allegedly running scooter workshop, which is very difficult to believe. However, whatever work he was doing, he might have been earning Rs.2,500/- definitely when his future earning capacity is also considered and his average income can be taken at Rs.2,500/- per month. Out of that as he was unmarried, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the remaining 50% can be taken as contribution to the family, which can be at Rs.1250/-. On the basis of the age of the mother, multiplier ‘14’ can be taken into consideration. In that event, the compensation for loss of income comes to Rs.2,10,000/- and another Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards other heads, but as the compensation being awarded on the basis of approximate age and income and as the deceased was an unmarried person, it can be restricted to Rs.2.00 lakhs. Accordingly, I hold that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Coming to the question of liability of the insurance-company second respondent, there is no authentic material to show that the vehicle involved in the accident had no fitness certificate on the date of accident. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondent insurance company to prove the said fact. The evidence of R.W.1 is that as per Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report the fitness of the offending vehicle expired on 09.09.1999. It is not his evidence that subsequent to that it was not renewed. The first respondent, who remained exparte, would have been the right person to show that the fitness certificate was renewed or not subsequent to 09.09.1999. The insurance company-second respondent did not call for any record concerned to show that there was no renewal of the fitness certificate. As such, it cannot be positively held that the vehicle had no fitness certificate as on the date of accident. The Court below went on the presumption that as the documents found in the vehicle revealed that the fitness certificate expired on 09.09.1999 that might not have been renewed. This finding of the court below is erroneous. In the absence of authentic material, which could have easily been called for by the second respondent, the contention that the fitness certificate expired by 09.09.1999 cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, I hold that the finding that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation from the second respondent on account of there being no fitness certificate is erroneous. In the circumstances, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,65,000/- to Rs.2.00 lakhs to be payable to petitioners-claimants 1 and 2 only as ordered by the court below and further holding that the second respondent is also liable for the compensation. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 18th November 2010, Rns