IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3899 of 2003 Between: M.Satyanarayana and others ..... APPELLANT(S) AND S.Geetha Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3899 of 2003 ORDER: Appellants, who are parents and sister of M.V.N. Shashikanth (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’), filed claim petition in O.P.No.488 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the death of deceased in a motor accident, alleging that on 01.01.2002 at about 07.15 p.m. while the deceased was coming on CBZ motor cycle bearing No.AP11J1062 as a pillion rider from Hyderabad side towards Warangal, in the village limits of Shivareddyguda near Venkateshwarakunta, a Tractor bearing No.AP36T8593, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, coming from wrong side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle resulting fracture of head and other injuries to the deceased and the deceased succumbed to those injuries while being taken to a hospital on the same day night. Respondents filed counters denying the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident caused death to the deceased that took place on 1-1-2002 at about 7-15 P.M. in the village limits of Shivareddyguda, Ghatkeswar Mandal, R.R. District, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP36-T-8593? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP36- T-8593 resulting the death of the deceased, awarded Rs.1,10,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased in the accident. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the present appeal is by the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellants are entitled to and there is no need to enhance the same. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ‘Just’ and, if not, to what compensation the appellants are entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.92,400/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.1,000/- towards transportation; and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; making a total of Rs.1,10,400/-. As seen from the record, the Tribunal, by disbelieving Ex.A.8 salary certificate, took the annual loss of dependency at Rs.8,400/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The evidence of P.W.1, who is father of the deceased, to the effect that the deceased was having computer knowledge and was working in S.P.C. Bio-Tech Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, coupled with Ex.A.8 salary certificate purported to have been issued by the said company, would go to show that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal did not take this evidence in a right perspective and took the earnings of the deceased at a much lesser rate for arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation. However, since no person was examined to prove the salary certificate, I take Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Since the deceased was a bachelor, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], 50 per cent of the earning is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.24,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is the age of the mother of the deceased that has to be taken into consideration for fixing the appropriate multiplier. It is surprising to note that the Tribunal took the age of the mother of the deceased as above 50 years by taking into consideration the cross- examination of P.W.1 that he was aged above 54 years, though the age of the mother of the deceased was mentioned in the claim petition as 40 years. There is nothing on record to show that the mother of the deceased was aged above 50 years. The Tribunal took the age mother of the deceased as above 50 years for fixing the appropriate multiplier, on an erroneous assumption that inasmuch as the father of the deceased was aged above 54 years the age of the mother would be above 50 years. But, I am inclined to take the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years as noted in the claim petition. The appropriate multiplier as per SARLA VERMA case (1 supra) for the age of 40 years is ‘15’. So, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate which I feel is on higher side and I grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- only under that head. However, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal also granted Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. I do not wish to interfere with those amounts and the same remain unaltered. So, the appellants are entitled to Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection + Rs.1,000/- towards transportation + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; totaling to Rs.3,83,000/-. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation is fixed at 6% per annum from today. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.3,83,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,10,400/- from the date of the petition till the date of realization and with interest at 6% per annum on Rs.2,72,600/- from today till the date of realization. From out of the enhanced compensation, first appellant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and interest thereon and second appellant is entitled to 1,72,600/- and interest thereon. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 12th August 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104