IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2533 OF 2003. Date:17.11.2009. Between:- M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad. ..Appellant/R-2 And Smt Mumtaz Begum and others .. Respondents/Petitioners,R-1 and R-3. JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2002 passed in O.P.No.276 of 1995 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,47,352/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Mirza Altaf Baig, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.10.1994. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased. Claimant No.4 is the father of the deceased, who died subsequent to the filing of the O.P. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased, who was working as a Police Constable, was dashed by a tractor and trailor bearing Nos.A.T.S.5230 and A.T.S.8468 at Sumitra Nagar on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. A case in Cr.No.308 of 1994 was registered by Kukatpally police against the driver of the tractor. After due investigation, a charge sheet was also filed by the police. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 38 years by the date of accident and he was earning salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The owner of the tractor and trailor remained exparte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation inter alia on the ground that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor driven by its driver. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant-insurer and Exs.B- 1 to B-11 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,47,352/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that there was no accident involving the tractor and trailor and the death of the deceased occurred under some mysterious circumstances. According to the appellant, when the tractor was going along the road, the driver of the tractor has seen in his rear view mirror that a person was being thrown out of the auto, which was coming behind, and that as the deceased was a Police Constable, the police managed to register a F.I.R. against the driver of the tractor though the said vehicle is not involved in the accident and prosecuted the driver of the tractor only to get compensation. The driver of the tractor has not been examined before the Tribunal. In the absence of his evidence, the plea of the appellant as to the circumstance under which the death of the deceased occurred, according to them, remains totally unsubstantiated. No doubt, the prosecution against the driver ended in acquittal. It does not, however, lead to any conclusion that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The Post Mortem report shows that the deceased died due to multiple fracture injuries. The inquest report also shows that the death was due to the accident involving the tractor. The registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge sheet against the driver, after due investigation, also prima facie show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and in the absence of any contra evidence by the appellant-insurer, the driver of the vehicle not having been examined, it must be held that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The evidence on record would show that the age of the deceased was 38 years on the date of accident. The salary certificate would show that the deceased was drawing Rs.3,072/- and after deduction, the net salary was Rs.3,037/-, without much difference between the gross salary and net salary. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 12.79 as per the guidelines in Bagwandas Vs. Mohd.Arif,[1] arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,14,352/- by adding compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,47,352/-, which amount is considered to be just and reasonable. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J November 17, 2009 AMD [1] (AIR 1988 A.P.99)