IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.Nos.4165 of 2003 and CMA (SR)No.58609 of 2003 C.M.A.No.4165 of 2003 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Uppala Anjamma and 3 others .. Respondents C.M.A.(SR) No.58609 of 2003 Between: Uppala Anjamma and 2 others .. Appellants AND K. Somaiah and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the award dated 27-02-2003 in O.P.No.1066 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District. Uppala Jangaiah, an auto driver, aged 22 years, was travelling as a passenger in Auto AP-9V-4261 on 12-12-1999 and in the outskirts of Dhobipet village, the auto turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Uppala Jangaiah sustained grievous injuries and died on 13-12-1999 while undergoing treatment at the Osmania General Hospital. Crime No.118 of 1999 was registered against the auto driver and Jangaiah was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. His parents claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto. On the death of the father during the pendency of the claim petition, the elder brother of Jangaiah was impleaded as his legal representative. While the owner of the auto remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimants to strict proof of all their allegations including the auto driver having a valid driving licence. The insurer contested the quantum of compensation to be excessive. During enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.14, B.1 and B.2. The Tribunal considered the points of responsibility for the accident, subsisting insurance for the vehicle and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation in the impugned award. It firstly accepted the eye-witness account of PW.3 and the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet to conclude that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. As Ex.B.1-Insurance policy was subsisting, the Tribunal considered both the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants and referring to Ex.B.2-investigation report spoken to by RW.1 on behalf of the insurer, the Tribunal refused to rely on the same not only for want of personal knowledge for RW.1 but also as the investigator never contacted the owner or driver of the auto and only stated about the non-production of the driving licence. In the absence of any other steps taken by the insurer in this regard, the Tribunal refused to conclude any absence of driving licence for the auto driver. The Tribunal considered the appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the mother 50 years to be 11 and assessed the monthly income of the deceased as an auto driver at Rs.2,000/- as against the claim of the claimants at Rs.3,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency of Rs.16,000/- per annum and in addition to such compensation of Rs.1,76,000/-, it awarded Rs.2,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. The entire compensation was considered payable only to the mother and compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurer challenged the said award in C.M.A.No.4165 of 2003 contending that the relevant multiplier is only 7.60 and the driver of the vehicle being prosecuted under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was ignored by the Tribunal. The effective driving licence on the date of the accident is a sine qua non for fastening any liability to the insurer and the mere non-examination of any person connected with RTA should not have led to rejecting the investigation report. The heavy compensation awarded was desired to be reversed. The claimants preferred the appeal in C.M.A.(SR) No.58609 of 2003 contending that the income of the deceased as stated by PW.2 should have been accepted to be Rs.3,000/- per month and no compensation is awarded towards loss of pleasure, mental shock, agony and pain and suffering. The mother, an aged widow, should have been granted compensation as claimed. Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurer and Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the claimants in both the appeals are heard. Thus, while the owner of the auto never questioned his liability before the Tribunal and this Court, the points for consideration herein are any non-liability of the insurer on the question of existence of an effective valid driving licence for the auto driver at the time of accident and the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the mother is entitled. It should also be noted that the 3rd claim petitioner/brother of the petitioner impleaded as legal representative of his father did not question the grant of entire compensation to the mother. On the question of the existence of a valid driving licence for the driver of the auto at the time of accident, the evidence of RW.1 on behalf of the insurer was obviously not based on any personal knowledge. While subsisting insurance of the auto was not in dispute, to note the basis on which the charge sheet indicated the probable absence of a licence for the driver, no person connected with the investigating agency had been summoned or examined. The investigation report-Ex.B.2 showed that the investigator did not enquire the driver or owner of the vehicle about the driving licence and no presumption would have followed the mere non-production of the driving licence before the investigator. The charge sheet-Ex.A.2 of course prosecuted the driver under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but it did not elaborate as to why the investigating agency presumed the driver to have committed the said offence. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal on the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record cannot be considered to be perverse or unreasonable and cannot be interfered with. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the mother as PW.1 claimed her deceased son to be an auto driver earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the age of 22 years as stated in the petition and her evidence and that she was aged at 50 years by that time. While the dependency of the widowed mother on the son is not factually in dispute, the loss of dependency had to be calculated with reference to the age of the mother and for the age of 50 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 13 according to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Even if the assessment by the Tribunal of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and deduction of 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased were to be adhered to in the absence of any contrary evidence, the multiplier to be applied has to be changed from 11 to 13 and if so, a further sum of Rs.32,000/- has to be awarded under that head. Similarly, the Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses in the above precedent. The said sums also can be so enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. While the rate of interest granted was not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest, the compensation should be so enhanced to be paid to the mother. In the result, the award dated 27-02-2003 in O.P.No.1066 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy, is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.37,000/- that is granting a total compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization to the first claimant/mother and no further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. C.M.A.No.4165 of 2003 is dismissed without costs and CMA (SR) No.58609 of 2003 is allowed without costs in part accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298