HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1603 of 2006 Date:23.12.2010 Between: Savide Pedda Narasa Reddy and another ….Appellants. And: Devarakonda Lakshminarayana and 2 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1603 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal has been filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2003. They are the parents of Saide Pedda Narasa Reddy. He was the 2nd son to his parents. He completed his graduation and pursuing his further education in Technological Institute for Management and Advanced Computer Education, Tirupathi in the year 2002. On 16.10.2002 he along with one Palle Subba Narasareddy went to Madhavaram bus stop on their personal work and after completion of their work, they went to Arthi hotel and after having Tiffin and came out of the hotel and were walking on the left side of the road at about 11.50 a.m. At that time, one Swaraz Mazda bearing No.AP 26U 8289 came in high speed driven in a rash and negligent driving dashed him. As a result, he received multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa for treatment. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at about 1.10 p.m on the same day. The claimants, who are his parents, have lot of hopes on him. They lost the assistance of their son. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of their son in the accident. According to them, the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. The owner and driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. Insurer alone contested the matter. Insurer filed counter disputing the income of the deceased and entitlement of claimants to claim compensation. The insurer also disputed the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Swaraz Mazda vehicle. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Sadiva Rajareddy died in motor vehicle accident on 16.10.2002 due to rash or negligent driving R.2’s Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP-26U-8289 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. On behalf of the insurer, one witness was examined and one document was marked. The Tribunal on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP-26U- 8289 and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit. Accordingly the Tribunal allowed the OP in part by judgment dated 17.05.2006. Dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation, claimants have filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the quantum of compensation and the income of the deceased has been taken in a conservative way and therefore, the quantum of amount granted by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced taking the monthly income of the deceased at least at Rs.5,000/- per month. A further submission is made that the contribution of the deceased to the family members at 1/3rd of his earnings is contra to the well settled principles of law as enunciated by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. According to the learned counsel 2/3rd of the earnings of the deceased ought to have been taken as contribution to the family. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-insurance company supported the order impugned in this appeal. The only point that calls for adjudication whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate? The evidence brought on record established that the deceased had not even completed his graduation as on the date of accident. Result of his graduation came to be announced after the accident. Though the appellants-claimants pleaded in the petition that the deceased was pursuing his M.B.A degree as on the date of accident, they failed to substantiate the same. Indeed the insurer examined one K.T.Kumar to prove that the deceased had not even joined in M.B.A Course as on the date of accident. Be, that as it may, the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, deducted 2/3rd towards his personal and living expenses. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] that the deduction should be made for personal and living expenses at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, if he is married, and at 1/2nd of the income, if he is un-married (Bachelor). The son of the claimant was a Bachelor as on the date of accident. We deem it appropriate to take half of his income as contribution to the appellants-claimants. The total loss of dependency of the appellants-claimants can be calculated at Rs.15,00/- X 12 X 15= Rs.2,70,000/-. The appellants also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.2,80,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.2,80,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry the interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit. No order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:23.12.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.75 of 2006 Date:23.12.2010 Gk. [1] AIR 2009 Supreme court 3104