IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1968 of 2003 Between: Chitturi Anasuya .. Appellant AND Porapu Lakshmana Rao and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in MOP.No.762 of 1998, dated 31-10-2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram. Chitturi Venkata Ramana was going on scooter AEV-2733 on 19-2-1998 and near Ramabhadrapuram village, lorry No.AP-35- T-1080 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent came opposite in high speed and dashed against the scooter. All the three persons on the scooter died due to the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent. Venkata Ramana was claimed to be working in Electronic Service Unit earning Rs.3,000/- per month and his mother stated to be aged 46 years claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- The driver and owner of the lorry denied any rashness or negligence in driving the lorry and placed the blame on the scooter driver for his rashness and negligence in driving. The insurer also disputed the claim attributing the rashness and negligence in driving to the scooter driver and claimed that the parties relating to the scooter are necessary parties to the petition. The claim was also contested as excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation and the quantum of compensation. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 were marked during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting Exs.A.1 to A.3-FIR, Post Mortem Certificate and M.V.I. Report corroborating PW.2 about the responsibility of the 1st respondent for the accident with his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal considered any person concerning the scooter to be not a necessary party and in view of the ownership of the lorry with the 2nd respondent and the insurance subsisting with the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal concluded all the three respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In the absence of any documentary evidence about the qualification or employment or salary of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as an unskilled labourer at Rs.40/- per day for 25 days in a month. The admission of PW.1 that she was aged about 50 years by the date of death of the deceased was acted upon by the Tribunal and assessing the loss of dependency at 50% of the assessed income at Rs.500/- per month, the compensation was fixed at Rs.50,000/-by multiplying the annual loss of dependency with 7.68 and rounding off the compensation. Non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/- were also awarded and the compensation was directed to carry interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs. The appellant is before this Court claiming that the income of the deceased ought to have been accepted at Rs.3,000/- per month and the Tribunal itself should have called upon the owner of the employer-Swamy Electronics to depose before the Court. Sri B. Gajender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard and respondents 1 and 2 are unrepresented before this Court. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the 1st respondent being responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the lorry with the 2nd respondent and subsisting insurance with the 3rd respondent are not disputed by any party and the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 to justly and adequately compensate the mother of the deceased is not in dispute. It is only the quantum of compensation that is to be adjudicated herein. The age of the mother, which has to be taken as the basis for assessing the compensation, was taken as 50 years on the evidence of PW.1 herself and in the absence of any documentary evidence for the claims of PW.1 about the qualification of the deceased or his employment or his salary, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of his being an unskilled labourer having work for 25 days in a month. As laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] in the case of the death of a bachelor and the claim was by a parent, 50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses, which was what the Tribunal had done and while the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 7.68 for the age of 50 years, it should have been 13 according to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra). On application of such multiplier, the loss of dependency should have been at Rs.78,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-. Insofar as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages should have been awarded to the claimant and therefore, a total compensation of Rs.98,000/- would have been just and adequate compensation. Hence, there should be an enhancement of Rs.33,000/-, but interest on the enhanced compensation should be confined to 6% p.a. in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, while proportionate costs of course shall follow suit. In the result, the award dated 31-10-2000 in MOP.No.762 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.33,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298