HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1373 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 827 of 1998 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of one Sri Kuruva Sivanna in a road accident that occurred on 21.2.1998 at about 4.40 PM while the deceased was crossing the road, a Maruthi Car being No. AP 9A 4524 hit the deceased and subsequently he succumbed to injuries. By the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was cultivating lands of others on lease and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. First respondent-owner of the Martuthi Car bearing No. AP 9A 4524 remained ex parte. The second respondent-National Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 9A 4524, therefore, owner of the Maruthi Car is held liable vicariously to pay compensation. It further held that since the policy was in force the second respondent, being insurer of the Maruthi Car is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation, The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- granted total compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, claimants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum excluding the expenses. He also contended that the Court below ought to have given an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-National Insurance Company contended that the driver of the Maruthi Car is having only learning licence and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and even if the Insurance Company paid the compensation also the same can be recovered from the owner or driver of the offending vehicle as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARANSINGH AND OTHERS[1]. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company and perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 9A 4524 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. As per the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 by the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was cultivating lands of others on lease and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. But there was no recorded evidence as to the land owned by the deceased and as to the fact of cultivation of lands of others by the deceased. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as 15,000/- as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses as the deceased was having 4 children, he might spend more amount to his family, the amount comes to Rs. 11,250/- (15,000x1/4= 3,750-15,000= 11,250). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[2], the appropriate multiplier ‘14’ for the age of 45. Therefore, if applied the appropriate multiplier, amount comes to Rs. 1,57,500/- (11,250 x14 = 1,57,500) and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards love and affection totaling to Rs. 1,72,500/-. 7. In NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPNAY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS (supra-2), the Supreme Court observed as under: “In case driver had only a learner’s licence the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. In case the Tribunal found that the Insurance Company has proved its defence, it can direct that the Insurance Company is entitled to be reimbursed by the owner or driver in which case, a certificate has to be issued on which the insurance company is liable to recover it from the owner or driver”. 8. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS (supra-2), this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,11,000/- to 1,72,500/- payable by respondents 1 and 2 and it is made clear that the insurance company is at liberty to pay and recover the amount from the owner or driver of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 9A 4524 in case driver of the Maruthi Car had only a lerarner’s licence at the time of accident. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 12% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.8.2010 KA [1] (2004) 3 SCC 297 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129