IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR FRIDAY, THE FIFTY DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1037 of 2000 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.850 of 2001 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1037 of 2000 Between: Smt. Y. Lakshmi And others …Petitioners AND Mr. S. Shivaraj And another …Respondents CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.850 of 2001 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., …Petitioner AND Smt. Y. Lakshmi And others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1037 of 2000 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.850 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: The claimants have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1037 of 2000, whereas the Insurance Company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.850 of 2001. Both the appeals are directed against the award dated 06.12.1999 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) in O.P.No.626 of 1998. The first claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the first claimant, in a motor accident which occurred on 17.04.1998. The allegations in the claim petition are that the deceased was an employee of ‘Bhujanga Reddy Poultry Farm’ drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and was aged about 40 years at the time of death. While he was taking eggs in an auto trolley bearing registration No.AP 13 U 7341, the auto trolley met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting in serious injuries including multiple head injuries, which ultimately resulted in death of the said Y.Krishna Reddy. While a criminal case in Crime No.95 of 1998 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, claimants have filed present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground that the auto trolley was hired by them in which, the deceased was travelling along with his goods and are entitled for compensation and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company inter alia by raising a defence that no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of the passengers travelling in the auto trolley and hence, no compensation can be claimed from the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, considering the issues, found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto trolley, and to the extent of ascertaining the compensation, the Tribunal was of the view that in the absence of any evidence as regards the actual earnings of the deceased, his income was taken at Rs.1,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom, multiplier of 12.79 was applied to arrive at the dependency of Rs.99,762/-. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and further Rs.15,000/- to the claimants towards loss of estate. The total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was aggregated to Rs.1,19,762. As stated above, the claimants seek enhancement of the compensation whereas the Insurance Company, in their appeal, questions that to the extent they are concerned, the liability cannot be imposed. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. While the learned counsel for the claimants contend that the accident has occurred after the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) came into force and Section 147 of the Act was noticed by the Tribunal and on finding that the deceased was travelling with goods as representative of the owner, statutory liability of the Insurance Company under Sub-clause B of Sub- Section 2 of Section 147 of the Act cannot be denied by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the said amended provision was considered by Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Baljit Kaur and others[1], wherein, the term ‘any person including owner of the goods or authorized representative’ is covered under Section 147 of the Act. He has also relied upon another decision of learned single Judge of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. E.Laxma Reddy (died) per L.R.s and others[2] for the proposition that a passenger travelling in a vehicle along with his goods is entitled for coverage of his risk by the Insurance Company. Per contra, Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others[3] in support of the proposition that when the owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their risks. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence of payment of additional premium in the present case and as such, Insurance Company is not liable. I have considered the aforesaid rival contentions. In the light of the record of this case, the Tribunal below has specifically covered every aspect under issue Nos.1 and 2 and found that Ex.B.1 policy covers the risk of the deceased, inasmuch as the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling as authorized representative of the owner of the goods was established. The claimants had examined P.W.1, who is claimant No.1, and one of the important documents marked through her evidence was Ex.A.3 – certified copy of the inquest report. The said inquest report itself mentions that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. Further, there is evidence of P.W.3 – the owner of the goods who had employed the deceased in his poultry farm. He has deposed that the deceased was paid Rs.3,000/- per month as he was employed in the poultry farm and that on the date of accident, P.W.3 has sent eggs along with the deceased by an auto trolley when the accident occurred. In the cross-examination of the said witness, there is hardly any suggestion or cross-examination disputing the aforesaid statement of P.W.3 that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the goods as an authorized representative. The only cross-examination of the said witness was related to the quantum of monthly salary of the deceased. Further, R.W.1 – the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company admitted in the cross-examination that “it is true that in inquest report, it has been mentioned that the deceased Y.Krishna Reddy travelled in the goods vehicle along with goods…..”. The aforesaid evidence, therefore, clearly establishes that the risk of the deceased was clearly covered by the policy, even statutorily, under Section 147 of the Act. The finding of the trial Court in that respect, therefore, needs no interference by this Court and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.850 of 2001, filed by the Insurance Company, is liable to be dismissed. To the extent of quantum of compensation is concerned, appeal of the claimants deserved to be allowed in part. The reasons are as follows. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and further giving deduction of 1/3rd, the dependency would be Rs.700/- per month and the total compensation would nearly would work out to Rs.84,000/-. While the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12.79 taking the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of accident, as per the decision of Supreme Court in Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[4], the appropriate multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased in this case is 15, and the total compensation, therefore, would work out to Rs.1,26,000/- as against Rs.99,762/- granted by the Tribunal. To the extent of Tribunal’s award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, needs no interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal of the claimants i.e. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1037 of 2000 shall stand partly allowed. The loss of dependency of Rs.99,762/- assessed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to Rs.1,26,000/- and the said enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1037 of 2000 is allowed in part and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.850 of 2001 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR February 05, 2010 Bvv [1] 2004 ACJ 428 [2] 2007 ACJ 638 [3] (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417 [4] 2009 ACJ 1298