IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1699 OF 2010 Between: Smt.Badar Sultana and others …Appellants A n d P.Pallavi and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1699 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2009 in O.P.No.392 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein was allowed, granting compensation of Rs.5,25,600/- with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as against the owner of the vehicle but, however, the claim as against the insurance company was dismissed. 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of the deceased Syed Ismail, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2007. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 8 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was going on his Luna bearing No.AP 10 TR 4292 to Mamidipally from Pahadishareef and that near Yellagandi, a lorry bearing No.AP 27 V 5755, on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver, ran over the deceased and killed him on the spot. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was flower merchant and was running a tent house and was aged 45 years by the date of death and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. The 1st respondent herein, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter before the Tribunal opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation inter alia on the ground that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: i. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP 27V 5755 or the deceased himself and if both are responsible what is the responsibility of each for the accident? ii. Whether the tipper AP 27V 5755 belongs to 1st respondent and stood insured with the 2nd respondent on the date of accident and if so whether that policy covers the risk of the deceased? iii. Whether there was breach of conditions of policy as pleaded by the 2nd respondent and if so whether the 2nd respondent is not answerable for the claim? iv. Whether the petitioners are in principle entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and what is the liability of the respondents? v. To what relief? 6. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the insurer. Exs.X-1 and X-2 particulars of driving licence and authorization letter given by the Regional Transport Officer, Vijayawada, were also marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal on issue No.1 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the same. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,25,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. However, the Tribunal held that the insurance company cannot be made liable for the claim on the ground that the transport vehicle licence of the driver expired by 01.02.1984 and the non-transport vehicle licence expired by 29.01.1991 and there was no renewal and that by the date of accident on 13.02.2007, the driver had no valid driving licence. Aggrieved by the same and also not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier ‘10.45’ as against ‘17’ which is appropriate to the age of the deceased who was aged 45 years by the date of death. He would also contend that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amounts under heads like loss of consortium, loss of estate and transport charges to the hospital and repairs to the luna. 9. It is not disputed and is also borne out by Ex.A-3 inquest report and Ex.A-5 post-mortem examination report that the deceased was aged 45 years by the date of the accident. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, there was no evidence in support of the said claim regarding the income of the deceased. Exs.A-9 and A-10 certificates issued by Sarpanch showed that the deceased was a flower merchant and is also running a tent house. They did not, however, disclose the income of the deceased from the said business. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which can be considered to be reasonable. The annual income of the deceased, therefore, was estimated at Rs.72,000/-. As the said income exceeded the limit of Rs.40,000/-, the Tribunal opined that the multiplier as per the table mentioned in BHAGWANDAS v. MOHD ARIF[1] can be chosen and accordingly applied the multiplier of ‘10.45’. However, as per the recent decision of the Apex Court i n SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘14’. As the number of dependants left behind by the deceased is exceeding ‘6’ only one-fifth of the income can be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.57,600/- (Rs.72,000/- x 1/5th=Rs.14,400/-) (Rs.72,000/- minus Rs.14,400/- = Rs.57,600). The loss of dependency, therefore, works out to Rs.8,06,400/ (Rs.57,600/- x 14). The claimants are entitled for Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and the first claimant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges which is also considered reasonable. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,13,100/-. 10. The question which then arises for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent-insurer is also liable for payment of the above compensation. The 2nd respondent-insurer sought to avoid the liability on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence by the date of accident. In support of their claim, the insurer examined R.W.1 Manager (Legal) of the Company who testified that they obtained certified extract of the driving licence of the driver from RTA, Vijayawada and it revealed that the licence expired long back on 20.03.1990 i.e., 17 years prior to the date of accident on 13.02.2007 and the said licence was not renewed thereafter. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that he has gone through Ex.A-4. It is stated that the licence was in force till 29.03.2008. R.W.2 Junior Assistant from the RTA’s Office, Vijayawada produced Ex.X-1, the particulars of the driving licence in the name of the driver N.Baig, which is the same as Ex.B-4, the certified copy. According to R.W.2, as per Exs.X-1 and B-4, the licence was issued on 02.02.1981 and it was valid up to 01.02.1984 and the non-transport licence was valid up to 29.01.1991. He further deposed that the transport licence of N.Baig was renewed last on 23.03.1987 up to 20.03.1990 and thereafter there was no renewal. In the cross-examination, R.W.2 admitted that there was every possibility of the driver having his licence renewed without there being any intimation to their head office. He further admitted that they will not be having all the particulars of all the licences. He also admitted that he cannot say whether the licence of driver N.Baig was renewed till 29.03.2008. Based on the evidence of R.Ws.1 & 2 and Exs.X-1 and B-4, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident as his licence expired long prior thereto. The 1st respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. As per the evidence of R.W.1, a notice was issued to the owner on 26.06.2008 and he received the same under Ex.B-3 acknowledgement. The Tribunal, therefore, while observing that the owner consciously permitted the driver to drive the vehicle with the knowledge that he was not having valid driving licence has committed breach of terms of conditions of the policy Ex.B-1 and accordingly fastened the liability on the 1st respondent owner alone. 1 1 . The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that as per the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report Ex.A-4, the licence was renewed and licence No.569/81 was valid up to 20.03.2011 and, therefore, the driver was having a valid driving licence even by the date of accident on 13.02.2007. In support thereof, the appellants filed the particulars, by way of additional evidence, regarding grant of issue of driving licence bearing No.569/K/1981 OD issued to Noorulla Baig, son of Sattar Baig on 02.02.1981 and it was valid up to 20.03.2011 and non-transport vehicle licence was valid up to 20.03.2002 and badge No.29451 was also given. The said document also furnishes the particulars of the renewal of the licence from time to time both for LMV non-transport and HGV and HPV transport and shows that the licence for transport vehicle was renewed on 25.03.2008 and was valid up to 20.03.2011. The vehicle involved in the present case is a lorry. The driver was thus shown to be having a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle, which was valid up to 20.03.2011. As the accident occurred on 13.02.2007, it must be held that he was having a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It follows that there was no breach of terms of conditions of the policy Ex.B-1. Exoneration of the 2nd respondent insurer from liability is, therefore, unsustainable. The owner of the vehicle R-1 and the insurer R-2 are both jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation of Rs.8,17,900/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% per annum from the date of the appeal on the enhanced amount. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 1987 ACJ 1052 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121