IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2638 of 2009 & Cross-Objections (SR) No.23945 of 2011 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad …Appellant And: Shakeera Begum & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2638 of 2009 & Cross-Objections (SR) No.23945 of 2011 ORDER: This appeal and cross-objections arise out of the order dated 10.05.2007 in OP No.147 of 2006 on the file of the MACT cum II Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the first respondent-claimant herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent-Cross-objector. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent-claimant filed claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her deceased-son Shaik Jilaani, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.05.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, the deceased was travelling in a Cruiser Tempo bearing No.AP 22 U 7487 from Hyderabad to Kalwakurthy and that at about 8.45 p.m. when it reached Kalwakurthy bus stop, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle, the vehicle over turned and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.28 of 2005 was registered by Amangal police against the driver of the Tempo. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years, working as driver and earning Rs.4500/- per month and he was unmarried. 4. During the enquiry, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on her behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents in the OP. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver and the said finding is not seriously disputed. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,14,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer filed the appeal and not satisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant filed cross-objections. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would submit that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. In fact, the said ground is not raised before the Tribunal nor in the grounds of appeal. A perusal of Exs.A.1 to A.5 would disclose that the vehicle was a passenger vehicle and on that day it was carrying passengers including the deceased from Hyderabad to Kalwakurthy. Ex.A.8 copy of the insurance policy also shows that the vehicle was passenger vehicle, having seating capacity of 11 and additional premium was also collected to cover the risk of the passengers. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for the first time in the appeal that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle is therefore untenable and contrary to the evidence available on record. 6. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 23 years and was unmarried. According to the claimant, the deceased was working as a driver, earning Rs.4500/- per month. Though the claimant has filed Ex.A.7 salary certificate showing that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4500/- per month, none connected with the issuance of the said certificate is examined. The Tribunal has therefore refused to take the said certificate into consideration. The Tribunal however took the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.2000/- per month and applying the multiplier ‘13’ which is appropriate to the age of the claimant, who was aged 48 years, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.3,14,000/-. 7. The claimant filed cross-objections contending that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month as the evidence on record shows that the deceased was working as a driver. The inquest report Ex.A.2 shows that the occupation of the deceased was driver. Learned counsel for the first respondent-cross-objector relied upon the decision in ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Kalpana[1]’ wherein the apex Court in the similar circumstances held as follows: “…In the instant case, the deceased was of 33 years of age and was driving a taxi. However in the absence of any definite material about the income, monthly contribution to the family, after deduction for personal expenses was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., annually Rs.36,000/- and applying the multiplier of 13 as the age of deceased was 33 years, the compensation worked out to Rs.4,68,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of actual payment.” 8. In the present case also, as the deceased is shown to be a driver, it is considered that the income taken into consideration by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/- per month is rather on the lower side, inasmuch as, even an unskilled worker is earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. In view of the above decision of the apex Court and having regard to the occupation of the deceased as driver, a skilled worker, it is considered that his income can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘13’, the loss of dependency works to Rs.4,68,000/- and the same is limited to Rs.4,00,000/- which is claimed by the first respondent-claimant. The claimant is therefore held entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original award from the date of petition, and at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cross-objections, on the enhanced amount. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross- objections are allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss [1] AIR 2007 SC 1243