IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.805 OF 2011 Between: IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. .....APPELLANT AND Savitri Bisoi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.805 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Award and Decree, dated 21.09.2010, in O.P.No.125 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Chairman Accidents Claim Tribunal – cum – XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, an amount of Rs.5,53,000/- was awarded towards compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2, consequent on the death of their son Arambo Bisoi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘ the deceased’) in a road accident. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 15.02.2007 at about 05:30 PM, while the deceased was working and assisting in unloading of the Power Pressing Machines at Baba Engineering Works, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Hydraulic Mobile Crane No.12 XW AP 10 AJ 1175, lifted the Power Pressing Machine rashly or negligently with tremendous speed, and as a result, the Power Pressing Machine, which was lifted top high, suddenly slipped and fell down directly on the head of the deceased and he died on the spot. The Sanathnagar police had registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2007, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the driver of the crime vehicle. The deceased was hale and healthy; working as Welder in the Baba Engineering Works, earning Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. Hence, the claim. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and stating that the petitioners were put to strict proof of narration of the accident; age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident; rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident; that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners against different heads is highly excessive; that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the followings issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle 12 XW Hydraulic Mobile Crane bearing No.AP 10 AJ 1175? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? And 3. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to negligence of the operator of the crime vehicle and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.5,53,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent – Insurance Company. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the Award of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. Heard both sides. 10. The grievance of the appellant – Insurance Company is that instead of deducting 50% of the income, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and the remaining amount has been taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency. 11. In view of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], in case of unmarried son, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the remaining 50% has to be taken as contribution to the parents. If that is taken into consideration, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,500 x ½ = 2,250 x 12 X 15 = 4,05,000/- towards loss of dependency. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only), with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to equal share in the compensation awarded. 12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 06, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in ten days. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.805 OF 2011 April 06, 2011 [1] 2009 ACJ 1298