IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1961 of 2006 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Nizamabad .. Appellant AND Chand Bee and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 17-06-2005 in O.P.No.502 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The factual background for the appeal is that when Mohd. Imamuddin was going on his cycle on 22-10-2000 at about 11.30A.M., lorry No.AP-25-T-6311, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against him and then a tree near Kummarikunta in Bada Bheemgal village shivar. Imamuddin was shifted by his nephew to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he died on 25-10-2000. Imamuddin, aged 35 years, was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from scrap business and his wife and nine children filed the claim against the owner and insurer of the lorry for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and asserted that it was never informed by the owner or the claimants about the accident. The driver of the lorry was not having valid driving licence and permit and the claimants being related to the deceased was also disputed. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation and during enquiry, it examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.B.1 and B.2. The Tribunal firstly concluded with reference to the eye- witness account of PW.2 and Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 38 years as specified in Ex.A.2-charge sheet, Ex.A.3-Post Mortem Certificate and Ex.A.4-Inquest Panchnama. The Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased at Rs.150/- considering the claim of his wife as PW.1 and the claims of PW.2 as doing the same business and the conflicting claims of the insurer. The Tribunal took into account the necessity for the deceased to work hard and earn money to maintain 10 members of his family. It applied a multiplier of 16 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act though the claim is under Section 166 and arrived at a compensation of Rs.8,64,000/-, deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards his personal expenses and considered the balance of Rs.5,76,000/- to be the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.500/- towards damage to the clothing and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, but confined the award to Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed in the petition. The Tribunal permitted apportionment of the same, which was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurer challenged the said award herein contending that the notional income stated in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act alone should have been considered in the absence of any proof of the income of the deceased and the assessment of the age, the application of multiplier and the rate of interest granted were also incorrect. Heard Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the appellant- insurer and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. The 11th respondent-owner of the lorry did not appear before this Court also. In the grounds of appeal, the insurer did not challenge the joint and several liability of the owner and insurer of the lorry to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased and therefore, the only question that arises for adjudication herein is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to be awarded. The age of the deceased was arrived at by the Tribunal with reference to the Post Mortem Certificate-Ex.A.3 corroborated by Ex.A.4-Inquest Panchnama and Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The assessment of the age by the medical expert, who conducted autopsy, the independent inquest mediators, who had seen the dead body, and the statutory investigating agency, who must have verified the probable age, cannot be considered to be not a satisfactory basis for coming to the conclusion about the age of the deceased in the absence of any contrary evidence. The fact that the deceased had to maintain not only himself but also his wife and nine children being not in dispute, he must, as an able bodied person, have engaged himself in some avocation yielding a decent income to meet his basic necessities and even if the claims of the wife-PW.1 are tainted with interestedness, the other witness-PW.2, is stated to be also doing the same business in scrap. His evidence fairly admitted that out of the earnings of Rs.300/- per day, there will be expenses of Rs.150/- per day. In the absence of any material to doubt his independence or credibility and in the further absence of any contrary evidence for the insurer, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in assessing the income of the deceased probably as Rs.150/- per day. He should not have been taken as a person without avocation or income under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and even the minimum wages payable at about the relevant time could not have been drastically different from the assessment made by the Tribunal. Though the question whether in a petition under Section 166, the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act could have been taken recourse to for applying an appropriate multiplier may be of some substance after Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the appropriate multiplier applicable in an application under Section 166 to a person of the age of 38 years will be 15. However, when it comes to the deduction of personal expenses of the deceased done at 1/3rd by the Tribunal, the Apex Court made it clear that in the event of the dependent family members exceeding “6”, the deduction shall be only 1/5th. Therefore, the total loss of dependency, which should be compensated to the claimants, apart from the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium to be compensated in terms of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) will be undoubtedly much more than the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal had confined the compensation only to the amount claimed, which, therefore, cannot be considered to be excessive and the just and adequate compensation awarded is not susceptible to any interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-08-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298