HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3112 of 2009 & CMA(SR) No.53373 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: CMASR No. 53373 of 2004: The delay is condoned. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the claimants in Award dated 20.11.2003 passed in OP No.2535 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. CMA No. 3112 of 2009 3. This appeal is filed by the claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them in Award dated 20.11.2003 passed in OP No.2535 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimants and awarded Rs.2,55,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. out of the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Since the parties to the appeals are one and the same and both the appeals are have arisen out of the same award dated 20.11.2003, I deem it appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by this common order. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 6. The brief facts of the case that led to filing of these appeals are that: On 14.12.2000 the deceased-Domakonda Shiv Kumar and others were travelling in the car bearing No.AP 12B-4975 from Hyderabad towards Siddipet and at about 10.30 p.m. when they reached Rimannaguda village limits, a lorry bearing No.AP 10T 6885 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the car. Due to the impact, the car was completely damaged and the deceased including four other inmates and the driver of the car sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The police, Gajwel, registered a case in Cr.No.112/2000 u/Sec.304-A IPC. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years and studying II year B.Sc., Computers and working as a part time Accountant in a rice mill on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company with which the lorry was insured on the date of the accident. It is also the case of the claimants that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants. 7. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the insurance company resisted the claim by filing a counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. The Tribunal formulated the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 10T 6885 ? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? and if so to what amount and from whom ? iii. To what relief ? 9. To establish their case, on behalf of the claimants P.ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the Respondents RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1 -copy of the policy was marked. 10. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and after deducing 1/3 towards his personal expenses determined loss of contribution at Rs.16,000/- per annum and by applying 15 multiplier basing on the age of the mother, awarded Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, transportation charges and funeral expenses etc., In total the claimants were awarded Rs.2,55,000/- (Rs.2,40,000 + 15,000/-) together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was an intelligent student and that at the time of the accident, he was studying II year B.Sc., and that the marks secured by him in the previous public examinations i.e, Intermediate examination and I-year B.Sc., examinations would clearly show that he was a meritorious student and he had a bright future. It is also his submission that the deceased would have secured a good job had he survived. It is also argued that at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning while learning by working as an accountant in a rice mill. He has relied upon the decision of the Division bench of this Court (to which I am also a party) in the case in B.RAMULAMMA V. VENKATESH BUS UNION, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER [1]. His main submission is that since the Tribunal below awarded a meager compensation, the claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation and even if the total compensation to be awarded is more than the claim, claimants are entitled for the same. He has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Saroj & others[2]. 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the deceased was only a student and he was not earning anything at the time of accident and that the Tribunal has not accepted the salary certificate filed by the claimants and that as per the Judgment of the apex court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation[3] the interest should be calculated at the rate of 6% per annum only but the Tribunal erred in awarding 12% interest per annum and that in case of students and non-earning members, the maximum amount that can be taken as loss of dependency is only Rs.15,000 per annum and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal of the claimants. 13. The main point that arises for consideration in both these appeals is what is the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimants? 14. The Claimant No.1 is the father, Claimant No.2 is the mother, claimant No.3 is the sister and claimant No.4 is the brother of the deceased-Domakonda Ravi Kumar. 15. According to PW1, who is the father of the deceased, the deceased was studying II year B.Sc., at the time of the accident and that the he was working as a part time Accountant in M/s.Sharada Rice Mill, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad, and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In the claim petition it is averred that the deceased was working in a rice mill at Siddpet. The salary certificate issued by M/s. Sharada Rice Mill reveals that the deceased was working as a part time Accountant in the evening hours from 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 pm. 16. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that due to some clerical mistake, it is mentioned that the deceased was working in a rice mill at Siddipet, but in fact, he was working in a rice mill at Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. Moreover, it is evident from Ex.A12-salary certificate that the deceased had worked for six months prior to his death at M/s.Sharada Rice Mill, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. P.W.3 was examined to show that the deceased was worked along with him in M/s.Sharada Rice Mill, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad, during evening hours from 6.00 pm. to 9.00 pm. on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. Irrespective of the fact whether deceased was earning or not at the time of his death his future prospects shall be taken into consideration. 17. Be that as it may, the certificates relating to the educational qualifications of the deceased filed by the claimants reveal that the deceased got first division in Board of Secondary Education, Hyderabad. He got 91% marks in maths, 81 marks in General Science, 79 marks in Social Studies, 69 marks in Telugu and 70 marks in English. Ex.A7 is the Board of Intermediate Education pass certificate-cum –memo of marks. It also reveals that the deceased passed in I-division in Intermediate examination. He got 61 marks out of 75 marks in maths (B), 53 marks out of 75 marks in Maths (A), 64 out of 100 in English, 65 out of 100 in Telugu. I year B.Sc., marks also reveals that he got good marks in physics and computer science. He had also completed Computer Training Programme in Association with Pace Computer Education Private Limited and he was issued a certificate by the National Small Industries Corporation Limited, which is a Government of India Enterprise. Having regard to the educational qualifications and the marks obtained by the deceased as evident from Exs.A6 to A8, it appears that the deceased was an intelligent and meritorious student and had bright future. In this regard, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the decision cited supra (1) wherein it is observed as follows: “…. Where there is no scheduled employment prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, the wage can be fixed basing on the wages fixed to the worker or employee who does similar nature of work. That means the income of a worker can be determined basing on the income earned by a worker doing the similar work. For non-scheduled jobs the salary fixed by the Government at entry level can be taken as guidance. The job, which the deceased would have secured had he not died in the Motor Accident, and the salary of his classmates should be the basis. Similarly, where the students have acquired basic qualifications such an electrician, Fitter, Technician, Driver etc., and who died or sustained permanent disability, their income may be fixed on the basis of the income prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act or on the basis of the income earned by the newly appointed persons to such jobs whichever is on higher side. As far as the students, who completed or in final year or last semester of B.Tech., B.E., B.C.A. M.Tech, ME., or MBA. MCA etc., courses and who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries also can be fixed on the basis of the salary of their classmates when they entered into jobs. Some percentage say eg., 10% per year can be deducted in respect of the students studying III year or II year as the case may be. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there can be no doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has to be seen that now a days IV class employees are getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month depending upon their service.” 18. It is the duty of the court to award just and reasonable compensation. The parents provide education to their children with a great hope that in future their children will get decent employment and live comfortable life and support them in their old age. 20. In the circumstances, I consider it just and necessary to take the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is settled law that in case of bachelor 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards their personal expenditure. If 50% is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,000/- p.m. and annual loss of earnings come to Rs.48,000/-. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is 40 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is 15. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.48,000 x 15 = Rs.7,20,000/- . The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and transportation charges and funeral expenses etc., I consider that the same is just and reasonable. However, it appears that the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.7,45,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 15=Rs.7,20,000 +Rs.10,000 + Rs.15,000 = Rs,7,45,000/-) 19. Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case Chittumalla Bhagyalaxmi V. Md. Jafar Ali [4] and in the decision cited supra (2) in support of his contention that the compensation more than claimed can be awarded if the same appears to be just and reasonable. 20. What is required to be seen is whether the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants or not. Once the amount of compensation is determined, the claimants should be awarded the same irrespective of the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants in CMA No.3112 of 2009 is allowed and the claimants are awarded Rs.7,45,000/- compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of the compensation awarded, the claimants 1 and 2 shall take each Rs.3,00,000/- and 3rd claimant shall take Rs.75,000/- and 4th claimant Rs.70,000/-. The 1st claimant shall be entitled for costs. The claimants are permitted to withdraw half of the amounts awarded to them. In case of necessity, they may approach the Tribunal for withdrawing remaining amounts by showing sufficient case. The remaining half of the amount awarded to them shall be kept in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank for a period of five years. However, the claimants are directed to deposit the deficit court fee before drafting the decree and the Tribunal is directed to draft the decree after payment of deficit court fee. The CMA(SR) No.53373 of 2004 stands dismissed. No costs. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 15-04-2011 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.3112 of 2009 & CMA(SR) No.53373 of 2004 Dt. 15-04-2011 Mjl/* [1] 2009(6) ALD 684(DB) [2] 2009 ACJ 2161 [3] AIR 2009 SC 3104 [4] 2002 Suppl.(2) ALD 395 (DB)