THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3692 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 29.10.1998 in O.P.No.29 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy whereby an amount of Rs.76,800/- was awarded to the claimants who are parents of the deceased, with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows: On 16.12.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased along with his driver started by his lorry bearing No.AP.9T 3547 from Sholapur to go to Hyderabad with a load of Ragipandlu; that during early hours of 17.12.1993, the driver hit another parked lorry bearing No. AAT 225 near Priyadarshini Spinning Mills, Sadasivpet due to which the deceased died on the spot. Parents of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation. 3. The appellant-insurance company denied the petition allegations including rash and negligent driving on the part of the accident lorry driver and the time, place, manner of the accident as well as the age, health condition, occupation and earnings of the deceased. It also denied that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. It also denied that the accident vehicle was insured with it and alleged that the driver of the accident vehicle was not having a valid and subsisting driving licence by the time of the accident. 4. Basing on the pleadings of either side, the lower Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: i.Whether the pleaded accident occurred on 17.12.1993 due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP.9T 3547 and the deceased Moinuddin was died in the said accident? ii.Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased or not? iii.Whether the lorry of R-1 was insured with R-2 for third party risks? iv. What is the quantum the claimants are entitled to? v. To what relief? 5. That PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1-charge sheet, Ex.A.2-FIR, Ex.A.3-M.V.I report, Ex.A.4-P.M.E report and Ex.A.5- transfer certificate of PW.1 were marked on behalf of the claimants. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant-insurance company. 6. Taking into consideration the entire material on record including the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5, the lower Tribunal answered the first issue that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of third respondent’s lorry driver and consequently held that the third respondent and the appellant- insurance company to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 7. The lower Tribunal basing on Ex.A.4-P.M.E.report came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 18 years at the time of his death in the said accident and considering that the deceased was working as a cleaner on the accident lorry and was earning Rs.1200/- per month and also considering that the employment as a cleaner is not a permanent job, fixed his monthly earnings at Rs.600/- and applied the relevant multiplier ‘16’ and arrived at Rs.1,15,200/- (Rs.600/-x12x16). Out of which, 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses, thus arrived at annual loss of the dependency to his parents on account of his death at Rs.76,800/- and awarded the same towards total compensation with 12% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the lower Tribunal, the insurance company filed this appeal as has already been stated in para No.1, supra. 9. The only question raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the lower Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the age of the mother while considering the appropriate multiplier; that the Tribunal was in error in taking into consideration the age of the deceased for selecting the multiplier. As per the cause title in the O.P., the age of the mother of the deceased was 40 years at the time of filing of the claim petition. Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal should have taken the age of the mother into consideration instead of considering the age of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3rd of the annual earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of 50% of his annual earnings. 10. That having regard to the fact that none appeared for the respondents for a quite long time even on previous occasions i.e. 17.6.2010, 23.7.10 and 29.7.10, the matter was posted finally on 30.07.2010 deleting from the caption “for orders”. That even then none appears for the respondents and there is no representation today. As such, it is thought fit to proceed with the matter by hearing the learned standing counsel for the appellant- insurance company and dispose of it on merits. 11. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perused the record. 12. So far as the first contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company is concerned, in the case of the death of the son where parents are the claimants, the mother’s age is required to be considered for adopting an appropriate multiplier. In the decisions reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others,[1] and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. G.Ramanaiah,[2] it was held that whichever multiplier is less among the deceased and the parents that may be taken in to consideration while adopting the appropriate multiplier. Therefore, this court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the mother instead of the deceased in the case on hand. That the mother of the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of filing of the claim petition and the same has to be considered. That for a person aged 40 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision reported i n Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[3] is ‘15’. As the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.600/- per month, his annual income would be Rs.7,200/-. If 50% of the annual income is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,600/- per annum. The total loss of dependency would be arrived at Rs.54,000/- (Rs.3,600/- x 15= 54,000/-). Further the respondents-claimants are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Since the respondent-claimants lost their son at young age of 18 years, their hopes are thrashed to the ground, perhaps they were having high hopes on their son that he would contribute towards their maintenance in their old age. Taking into consideration the said fact this court is of the view that an amount of Rs.5,000/- may also be awarded to the respondents-claimants under non-pecuniary head. 13. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the respondents- claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.69,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand) only (i.e. Rs.54,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- under non-pecuniary head). 14. The C.M.A. is accordingly disposed of. ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 05 -08-2010 Stp [1] 1994 ACJ 1 [2] 1988 ACJ 223 [3] 2009 ACJ 1298