HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2706 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P. No.1320 of 1998 dated 13-02-2003, as excessive and exorbitant, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: (a) Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents, claimant Nos.3 & 4 are sisters and claimant No.5 is grandmother of the deceased. (b) On 01-08-1998 at about 10-00 PM, while the deceased K. Vema Reddy was going on his motorcycle (Hero Honda) bearing No.AP-11-A-877 along with his relative from L.B. Nagar towards Dilsukhnagar, near Fruit Market, Kothapeta, Dilsukhnagar, the lorry bearing No.AP11-T-4142, which was coming in the same direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle resulting in death of the deceased while undergoing treatment and escape of the pillion rider with grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.333 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Section 337 IPC and later altered it into the offences under Sections 338 & 304-A IPC. (c) The deceased was engaged in cultivation and was also having dairy farm. He was supplying 40 liters of milk to Hyderabad city everyday. He was also maintaining a tractor and giving the same on hire, he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The father of the deceased is a chronic patient, as such, the deceased was maintaining the family. Therefore, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. (d) The appellant, insurance company, filed its counter contending that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving licence to drive the lorry and that the claimants are not entitled to compensation even under no fault liability etc. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether K. Vema Reddy died in the accident occurred on 01-08-1998 at about 10-00 PM near Fruit Market, Kothapeta due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-11-T-4142 ? 2. Whether the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent (insurance company) covered the risk from the date of the accident ? 3. Whether the petitioners (claimants ) are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom ? 4. To what relief ? 4. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20. On behalf of respondent No.2, insurance company, except Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, no oral evidence was adduced. 5. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- to the claimants with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed by the insurance company. 6. Heard Sri N.V. Jagannath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the material on record. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company is that the compensation awarded to the claimants is highly excessive, as the deceased, who was 20 years old at the time of accident, was only a student and he had no income at all, as such, the Tribunal erred in awarding huge compensation. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the deceased was earning by doing cultivation of his own land and also cultivating the others land on lease and milk business apart from giving tractor on hire, as such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, in fact, on lesser side. 9. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is appropriate ? 10. The evidence of PW.1, mother of the deceased, is that by the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years, he was unmarried and he studied up to tenth class. As the father of the deceased sustained head injury in stone blasting, the deceased discontinued his studies and was doing cultivation of their lands and also taking lands on lease. Their family owns ten (10) acres of dry land. Apart from their land, the deceased was cultivating Acs.30-00 of agricultural land by taking the same on lease. The deceased was having 15 she-buffalos and they were running a dairy farm and on that they were earning Rs.12,000/- per annum. The dairy farm was run by the deceased. 11. The evidence of PW.2 is that at the time of accident, he was pillion rider on the motorcycle that was involved in the accident and that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 12. The evidence of PW.3, a villager of the deceased, is that he leased out his land to the deceased for Rs.75,000/- per annum and that the deceased owned about Acs.9-00 or Acs.10-00 of land, which he was cultivating. 13. The pattedar passbooks of the family of the deceased and the other material on record would show that the lands were being cultivated by the deceased. 14. Based on the evidence on record, The Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.73,200/- from agricultural operations and dairy farm business and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- to the claimants. 15. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the inquest report, the deceased is shown as student, as such, it cannot be accepted that he was attending cultivation and dairy farm business and earning. 16. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that what is mentioned in the inquest report may not be taken to be true as there is substantial oral and documentary evidence to show that the deceased was doing cultivation and diary farm business. 17. The evidence of PW.1 is that as the father of the deceased became mentally unsound on account of head injury, the deceased was attending to agricultural operations and dairy farm business. As there is nothing to controvert this evidence, by no stretch of imagination, income of the deceased which is taken at Rs.73,200/- per annum, which comes to Rs.6,000/- per month, cannot be said to be high, even if he was doing some kind of odd job also. 18. Further, the deceased owned a motorcycle that was involved in the accident. When he was owning a motorcycle and maintaining the same, the annual income arrived at by the Tribunal can be accepted as reasonable as any person without having an income of Rs.6,000/- per month may not be able to maintain a motorcycle. 19. Thus, the income of the deceased can be definitely taken at Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per month. Even on conservative basis, if it is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/-. If 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.60,000/-, as the dependants on the deceased are more than four, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.45,000/- per annum. 20. Since the deceased died unmarried, age of his mother has to be taken into consideration for computing the loss of dependency. The age of the mother of the deceased is taken as 42 years. For the age group of her, the appropriate multiplier is 15. When the annual contribution of the deceased towards his family is multiplied with multiplier 15, loss of dependency alone comes to Rs.6,75,000/- and the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,55,000/- towards total compensation, which include Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and loss of future earnings. 21. Thus, viewed from any angle, the compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- awarded to the claimants cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Hence, I see no grounds to reduce the compensation. 22. However, rate of interest can be reduced from 9% to 7.5% as per the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is accordingly reduced. The apportionments and mode of withdrawal of the compensation can be as ordered by the Tribunal. 23. With the above modification in rate of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 18, 2010. PV