IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.1925 of 2006 Dated:28-10-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. ….Appellant. And Kankala Karuna Reddy and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.1925 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company directed against the award passed in O.P.No.800 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 06.05.2003. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the claimants before the Tribunal and they have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, and son of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. According to the petitioners on 07.03.2000 at about 10.00 A.M. when the deceased K.Narender Reddy travelling in a Army motorcycle as a pillion rider from Army headquarters towards parade road on duty and when they reached St.Marry school, a contract carriage bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, due to which the deceased and driver of the motorcycle sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Army hospital and after first aid he was shifted to Base hospital, Delhi cantonment and thereafter to Army hospital, where he succumbed to injuries on 11.03.2000. The deceased was a Hawaldar and drawing a salary of Rs.8,149/- per month and he was selected and posted to Foreign Mission Abroad, Katmandu on deputation and he was to report duty on 01.06.2000 and his salary would have been Rs.54,436/-. He is also entitled for the promotion as Lieutenant in the year 2004, as such the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the said vehicle remained exparte. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter pleading that the policy could not be traced out and denied the coverage of the vehicle by their insurance company and also pleaded that the claim is excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.DEP 7707 by it’s driver? (2) Whether the vehicle in question has got valid insurance on the date of accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (4) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the contract carriage bus and also held issue No.2 in favour of the petitioners holding that the said vehicle was covered by 3rd respondent as on the date of the accident. With regard to issue No.3, the Tribunal by taking into consideration of the salary of the deceased as Rs.8,419/- basing on Ex.A.4 salary certificate and by taking into consideration of the future prospects doubled the said salary and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier ‘16’ awarded a sum of Rs.20,86,272/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to petitioners 2 to 5 for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and thereby arrived the compensation at Rs.21,56,272/- but restricted the same to Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant/insurance company’s counsel has pleaded that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking into consideration of the double amount of the salary as income of the deceased and applied higher multiplier and also awarding higher rate of interest at 9% P.a. The respondents/claimants’ counsel on the other hand justified the award passed by the Tribunal. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.8,419/- and the same was supported by Ex.A.4 salary certificate. According to P.W.1, the deceased was deputed to work in Khatmandu and he would be retired as Major and entitled to draw a salary of Rs.30,75,000/- per year. According to the petitioners, the deceased has to report for duty on the Foreign Mission on 01.06.2000, whereas the accident was occurred on 07.03.2000 and he died on 11.03.2000 i.e. before joining in the said Foreign Mission. As the deceased was working as Hawaldar and aged 32 years as on the date of his death, he has got future prospects in his employment, as such the future prospects of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for awarding the compensation. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, 50% of his salary has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects as he was aged only 32 years. Thus, by taking the salary of Rs.8,419/- and adding 50% towards future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to (Rs.8,419 + Rs.4,209) Rs.12,628/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, but in view of Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) as the claimants are 5 in number, only 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the dependency of the petitioners comes to (Rs.12,628 – Rs.3,157) Rs.9,471/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years, as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the proper multiplier that is applicable is 16. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.9,471 X 12 X 16 = Rs.18,18,432/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 towards loss of love and affection. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the petitioners are only entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of (Rs.18,18,432 + Rs.20,000) Rs.18,38,432/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% on the compensation amount, but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation amount. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.18,38,432/- from Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:28-10-2011 Ksp