IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28TH) DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND, NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A No.3073 of 2002 & Cross objections (SR) No.23290 of 2003 Between: United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch office At Sangareddy, rep. by its Branch Manager, … Appellant/R.2 And: Varre Chiranjevamma & 2 others … Respondents/claimants/Cross-objectors HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A No.3073 of 2002 & Cross objections (SR) No.23290 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.10.2001 in OP No.597 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein, the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed granting total compensation of Rs.2,63,090/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Cross-Objections are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/Cross-objectors. Perused the record. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Prabhakar Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.06.1998 at about 2.30 p.m. The first claimant is the mother and the 2nd claimant is the brother of the deceased, who died unmarried. According to the claimants, on that day at about 2.30 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding on Yamaha Motor cycle from Bidar cross roads of Zaheerabad, a van bearing No.AP 9U 4842 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased near Railway gate on NH No.9, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Zaheerabad. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 20 years, was an agriculturist and was also doing wine shop business and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 5. The 3rd respondent herein, owner of the van and the appellant/insurer, filed their counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During the enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. 6. 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 van bearing No.AP 9U 1329 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,63,090/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer filed the appeal and not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van is not seriously disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant questioned the quantum of compensation on the ground that instead of taking the age of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased, who was unmarried, into consideration for estimating the loss of dependency. He would further contend that without there being any evidence on record, the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross-objectors on the other hand contend that as per Ex.A.5 the deceased was running wine shop and the amount of income taken by the Tribunal for consideration is very low and the Tribunal also failed to award any amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 8. The evidence on record would establish that the deceased was aged about 26 years by the date of the accident and that he was having licence to run wine shop issued under Ex.A.5 by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Medak at Sangareddy. Ex.A.6 shows that the deceased was having cultivation. It is not disputed that the deceased died unmarried. On account of the death of the deceased, there was no loss in terms of cultivation, inasmuch as the 2nd claimant-brother of the deceased is admittedly taking care of cultivation of the land. There is also no evidence to show that the wine shop had to be closed because of the death of the deceased. The claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the income that was getting by the deceased from the wine shop. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month from wine shop and Rs.600/- per month from agriculture, total Rs.2100/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.1400/- per month towards contribution to the family. The said amount is considered to be just and reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to show that the deceased was getting anything more. 9. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier 15.66 for the age of the deceased as per the multiple table in ‘Bhagawandas vs. Mohd. Arif’ case [1987(2) ALT 137]. As the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration. The first claimant-mother of the deceased is stated to be aged 45 years. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the suitable multiplier for the age of 45 years would be 15. Thus there is no much difference between proper multiplier applied and the multiplier taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.2,63,090/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is therefore held just and reasonable. No doubt, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate or funeral expenses. As per the II Schedule, the amount that can be awarded under those heads is Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, but the same is adjusted towards excess multiplier applied by the Tribunal while working out the loss of dependency i.e., multiplier 15.66 instead of 15 as per the II schedule. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, there are absolutely no grounds for enhancement of the compensation and hence the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 10. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.10.2009 bss