IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.354 of 2006 Dated: 02-12-2011 Between: Nerella Narasimha Murthy and 2 others ….Appellants. And D.Sudhans Kumar and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.354 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the claimants is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.1135 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 09.11.2005. The appellants, who are the husband and children of the deceased Smt.N.Krishnaveni, ﬁled the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for her death in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 04.11.2003. According to the petitioners, the deceased N.Krishnaveni, aged about 50 years, used to work as Science Teacher in Z.P. High School, Denderu, Kottavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District and used to draw Rs.12,782/- per month. On 04.11.2003 the 1st petitioner along with the deceased was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road for attending her oﬃce duties on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 32 B 2851 and at about 8.45 a.m. one Kinetic Honda scooter bearing No.AP 31 E 6617 driven by the 1st respondent came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to their motorcycle. Due to which, the 1st petitioner and his wife fell down and the 1st petitioner sustained simple injuries and the deceased sustained grievous injuries on the head and became unconscious. Immediately she was shifted to S.R. Hospital, Gopalapatnam and after giving ﬁrst aid she was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital for further treatment, where she declared dead. The 1st respondent has opposed the application by ﬁling counter contending that there is no rashness or negligence on his part and the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st petitioner himself. The compensation is highly excessive and if any compensation is payable, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and he opposed the application contending that he purchased the vehicle in the year 1993 and disposed of the same in the year 2001 in an exchange scheme oﬀered by M/s S.V. Enterprises, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam and handed over the vehicle along with duly signed transfer form in exchange for a new vehicle to the aforesaid dealer and paid diﬀerence amount and purchased the new Kinetic Honda on 20.08.2001, as such, he is not the present owner of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company and it is in force as on the date of accident. The 3rd respondent, who is the insurer, has opposed the claim by ﬁling counter denying the age, income and employment of the deceased and according to them, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the 1st petitioner himself. The petitioners are put to strict proof with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place, income, age and employment of the deceased. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and whether it resulted in the death of the victim? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? (3) Which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation? (4) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Kinetic Honda bearing No.AP 31 E 6617 by its driver and it resulted in death of Smt.N.Krishnaveni. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- taking into consideration the salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and after deducting one-third towards her personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘11’ and granting Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards consortium. Aggrieved by the said amount of compensation, the claimants are ﬁled the present appeal questioning the said quantum. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the deceased last pay drawn is Rs.12,782/- and she has got 8 years service and she would have earned Rs.15,00,000/- by the date of her retirement, as such the lower Court has failed to take into consideration Rs.12,000/- as monthly income without adding any increments, which she would have earned till the date of her retirement. The appellants’ counsel also pleaded that as per G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 11.08.1999, the deceased was bound to receive Rs.21,608/- as on the date of superannuation, as such the same ought to have been taken into consideration for deciding the quantum of compensation. The respondent-Insurance Company’s counsel supported the award of the Tribunal. Ex.A-8 is the last pay certiﬁcate of the deceased, which shows that she is getting Rs.12,782/- per month and her basic pay is only Rs.9,300/-. In order to establish that the deceased was bound to receive Rs.21,608/- by the date of retirement, the petitioners relied upon Ex.A-11, copy of G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 11.08.1999. The said G.O. was issued in the year 1999 and the deceased died in the accident in the year 2003 and as per Ex.A-8, the last pay certiﬁcate, she is only drawing Rs.12,782/- per month after implementation of the G.O. relied upon by the petitioners. Since the deceased was aged 50 years, she was not entitled for any future prospects in the employment. Out of the total amount of Rs.12,782/-, income tax and professional tax are liable to be deducted and the Tribunal by taking into consideration of the same, rightly arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in arriving at the monthly income of the deceased and thereafter deducting one-third towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘11’ for the age of 50 years and awarding total compensation of Rs.10,80,000/-. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal fails. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA _______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.354 of 2006 Date: 02-12-2011 MR