THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.3802 of 2009 and 1238 of 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.3802 of 2009 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded while M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2012 is filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, questioning the very award dated 06.04.2009 passed in O.P.No.1793 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Since these two appeals are directed against the award dated 06.04.2009 passed in O.P.No.1793 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P. The facts in issue are as under: The claimants, who are parents of one B.Vijay Manoj Kumar, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of B.Vijay Manoj Kumar in a motor accident that took place on 23.04.2007. It is stated that on the fateful day, the deceased along with his friends Chandramouleswar Reddy and Sandeep were proceeding in Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 10 AE 9807 driven by one Venkat Harshavardhan. When the Car reached near Satyam Computer Office, the driver of the Car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to an auto, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result of which the deceased and Vivekananda Reddy, sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the injured were shifted to Bhavani Hospital, Shapur Nagar, where he succumbed to injuries. In respect of the above accident, a case in Crime No.77 of 2007 of Dundigal Police Station, came to be registered against the driver of the Car for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased who was aged about 21 years doing engineering and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a tutor was contributing the same to his family. It is stated that due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their only son and also their source of income. Since the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and as the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, an application was filed against both the respondents making them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The first respondent owner of the car remained ex parte, while the second respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place and also the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is specifically stated that the deceased, who was occupant of the car is not a third party and as he is a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event it is stated that the claim made is excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident on 23.04.2007 resulting in the death of the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Maruthi Car bearing registration No. AP 10 AE 9807? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, the quantum and whether both the respondents are jointly and severally liable, if not who among them are liable to pay the compensation? 3. To what relief? In support of the claim, the first claimant examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW.2, who was an eye witness to the accident. The claimants also got marked Exs.A1 to A13. The respondent insurance company examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and awarded compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by both the respondents. Challenging the same these two appeals are filed by the claimants and the insurance company. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the insurance company or owner of the vehicle. Though an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to their liability, as the deceased was inmate of the car, but, however, the same is not pressed by the counsel. The short point that arises for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased herein was studying first year engineering at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment in B.Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union[1] and also the Bench judgment in Setty Chandra Sekhar and another Vs. Mohd. Ghouse and another[2], wherein the income of an Engineering student was held to be not less than Rs.12,000/- per month, both the learned counsel agree that the deceased being an Engineering student, his income can be fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[3] the Apex Court held as under: “Since the Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others [4] case, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaries persons as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [5] case and to make it applicable also to self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self- employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.” From the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above it is clear that a person who is aged below 40 years would be entitled to an addition of 50% of his income to his income for computing the future prospects. If the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month and if 50% of the income is to be added to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.12,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, at the time of accident, 50% of income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If 50% of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be around Rs.6,000/- and the annual income would come to Rs.72,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration while calculating the loss of dependency. He places on record the Bench Judgment of this Court reported in N.Surender Rao and others Vs. B.Swamy and another[6], in support of the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company places on record the Judgments of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti Pathak and others[7] and also the judgment in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others[8] wherein the age of the mother of the deceased was taken into consideration for applying the multiplier. Referring to Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others[9] this Court in N.Surender Rao and others case ( 6 supra), held as under: “Thus, finding that the age of the dependents or the deceased whichever is higher is to be taken into consideration is though a ratio which forms part of a precedent but in view of the later judgment where certain directions were made by three judges is a precedent which laid down law. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others case (9 supra) is the law declared by the Apex Court and a binding precedent and if that is applied to the present facts of the case, multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased alone shall be taken for adopting appropriate multiplier for arriving at compensation to be paid to the dependants of the deceased bachelor. Hence, we hold that the age of the deceased 19 alone shall be taken for adopting multiplier in view of the law as on today, since earlier judgments are not binding precedents but they are only consisting of a ratio decidendi.” In view of the recent judgment referred above, the age of the deceased can be taken into consideration for calculating loss of dependency. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 21 years as per post mortem examination report (Ex.A4). In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (5 supra), the suitable multiplier would be ‘18’. Applying multiplier ‘18’ the loss of dependency would be Rs.72,000/- x 18 = Rs. 12,96,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards incidental charges, Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, but however failed to award any amount towards loss of estate. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar Vs. National Insurance Co.[10] and Kishan Gopal and another V. Lala and others[11], the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled Rs.14,06,000/-. At this stage, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioners claimed only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. I n Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another[12], the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh[13] held as under: “It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.” In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. In view of the above discussion, M.A.C.M.A.No.3802 of 2009 is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,80,000/- to Rs.14,06,000/- while M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2012 is dismissed. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The claimants would be entitled to the compensation awarded only after payment of deficit court fee. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 15.12.2014. vhb/gkv [1] 2009(6) ALD 684 & 2011 ACJ 1702 [2] 2011 ACJ 2403 [3] 2013 ACJ 1403 [4] 2012 ACJ 1428 [5] 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) [6] 2014 (1) ALT 512 [7] 2007 ACJ 2188 [8] 2013 Law Suit (SC) 751 [9] 2012 (2) An.W.R. 291 (SC) [10] 2014 (4) SCC 67 [11] 2014 (1) An.W.R. 58 (SC) [12] (2011) 10 SCC 756 [13] 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)