THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3676 OF 2002 DT.21.04.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ………………..Appellant Vs. Chavvu Padmavathi and five others. ……………….Respondents. JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in M.V.O.P.No.19 of 2002, dated 17.09.2002. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 before the Tribunal who are the legal representatives of the deceased C.Yanada Reddy filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, against which, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.13,17,000/-. The United India Insurance Company Limited is challenging the award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on it, eventhough the person who is driving the offending vehicle, i.e., a bus bearing No.AIB 4285, has no valid licence to drive such a vehicle and also on the ground that the compensation awarded is on higher side. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Smt.A.Malathi and Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants. The fact that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident, wherein a bus bearing No.AIB 4285 which was insured with the Insurance Company is involved is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, who is working under respondent No.6, the owner of the said bus. The question therefore to be considered is whether the petitioner drove the bus without having any valid licence to drive such a vehicle. Though it is the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess heavy motor vehicle driving licence at relevant time, it did not adduce any reliable evidence except marking Ex.B-2, which is said to be the Photostat copy of driving licence and Ex.B-3 Photostat copy of the registration certificate. The appellant did not examine any witness to prove the said documents. Therefore, by mere marking photostat copy of the driving licence, it is not open for the for the Insurance Company to contend that the driver had only light motor vehicle driving licence. The burden lies on the Insurance Company to establish that the driver was only having light motor vehicle driving licence and is not entitled to drive a heavy passenger vehicle, which is involved in the accident. The appellant Insurance Company did not even examine the owner of the vehicle to prove the said fact. Therefore, on account of the failure on the part of the appellant Insurance company to discharge its burden, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the Insurance Company could not be able to establish the said fact and therefore, fastened liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The said finding needs no interference in this appeal. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is the version of the claimants that the deceased was 26 years of age as on the date of accident. He was working in Vijaya Opticals and Ultra Vision Eye Clinic. He has Ac 10.00 of land. He was also doing business in Latest Lady Fancy and Gift Corner owned by the first claimant. PW-3 K.Sekhar Reddy stated in his evidence that the deceased was working in Vijaya Opticals and Ultra Vision Eye Clinic under Dr.Sudarshan and in proof of the said fact, Ex.A-7 salary certificate issued by Ultra Vision Eye Hospital was also produced. According to the claimants, from all sources, the income of the deceased is said to be Rs.10,000/-, and the Tribunal having accepted the said version computed the compensation on the said basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- p.m. The oral and documentary evidence, Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 certificates issued by the Ultra Vision Eye Hospital, Ex.A-10 Pass Book and agreement relating to Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Ex.A-11 pass-port and Ex.A-12 photostat copy of pattadar pass book indicate that the deceased was an agriculturist and he was also engaged in other business activities, which were mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs and thus his income for the purpose of computing compensation from all sources, can be arrived at Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, instead of the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was considered by the Tribunal as the income of the deceased, we take it as Rs.7,000/- per month, for the purpose of computing the compensation. There is no dispute about the age of the deceased as 26 years on the date of his death, which is also evident from A-1 to A-3 certificates. The annual income of the deceased was Rs.7,000 x 12=84,000/-. From this 1/3 has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.28,000/- and the contribution to the family comes to Rs.56,000/-. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with ‘16’, the multiplier which is applicable to the age of the deceased, and the amount comes to Rs.8,96,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The first respondent being the widow of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,16,000/- as compensation. Further, the interest granted at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation is on higher side, it is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. In the result, with the above reduction in the compensation, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.21.04.2010 tjs