IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1120 OF 2006. Date:22.10.2009. Between:- United India Insurance Company Limited, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Warangal. ..Appellant/Respondent No.2. And Manga Vasantha and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.01 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Warangal, wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was allowed in part regarding awarding compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. None appeared for respondent No.4-owner. 3. Perused the records. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of deceased Manga Mallesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.02.2004. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 04.02.2004, the deceased along with the claimants went to Medaram Jathra on a tractor/trailor bearing NO.AP36D 7448/7449 and while returning from the Jathra, at about 7.30 p.m., when the tractor/trailor reached S.R.S.P. Canal Bridge on the outskirts of Mallampalli village, a DCM van bearing No.AP36V 5784 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor/trailor from behind, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the road and the DCM van ran over him resulting in his instantaneous death. According to the claimants, at the time of death, the deceased was aged 30 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a Maistri. 5. The appellant/insurer filed a counter opposing the main application. The owner of the vehicle remained exparte. 6. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the DCM van by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the number of the DCM van as AP36V 5784 is nowhere mentioned, either in the F.I.R. or in the Inquest report and it was subsequently introduced only for the purpose of claiming compensation from the appellant. 9. Admittedly, the claimants are illiterates. P.W.2, who was traveling in the tractor and sustained injuries in the accident, is also an illiterate. Their failure to note the number of the DCM van at the time of the accident or mention the same in the F.I.R. cannot be pitted against them. The fact that in the inquest report – Ex.A-2 also, the number of the DCM van is not mentioned, is of no consequence. The police had duly conducted investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. – Ex.A-1 and after such investigation, a charge sheet – Ex.A-3 was filed wherein the number of the DCM van and the name of the driver were noted. The driver was also prosecuted. When the number of the DCM van was, therefore, ascertained during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that it was subsequently introduced by way of manipulation or interpolation. There is absolutely no reason as to why the claimants/police should choose to fix up this particular DCM van when so many vehicles were moving on the road in connection with the Medaram Jathra. The contention of the appellant that the number of the DCM van was subsequently introduced only for the purpose of claiming compensation from the insurer, cannot be countenanced, in view of the fact that during the course of investigation, the police have duly ascertained and identified the crime vehicle as DCM van bearing No.AP36V 5784. Admittedly, the said van is insured with the appellant and the policy was in force by the date of the accident. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in passing joint and several liability on the appellant/insurer. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, though the deceased was only a labourer and such wages were not being paid in the year 2004 when the accident occurred. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was a Maistri and he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, there being no evidence in support of such claim, the Tribunal has treated the deceased only as a labourer and taken his wages at Rs.100/- per day, on the premise that a labourer or a coolie would normally be earning anything between Rs.100/- and Rs.150/- per day. The appellant has not placed any material to show that Rs.100/- per day taken as wages for a coolie is on the highest side. Having regard to the ever increase in the cost of labour on account of all round escalation of prices and inflationary trends, the wages taken for a labourer at Rs.100/- per day by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be excessive even for the year 2004. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has taken the compensation of the deceased family at Rs.2,000/- per month which came to Rs.24,000/- p.a. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and suitable multiplier would be “17”. Applying the same, the Tribunal arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-. Awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,36,000/- with interest at 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The above said compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, after taking all relevant factors into consideration, cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable, and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd October, 2009 AMD