IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.2810 of 2007 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Mrs. Mable and others ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award in M.V.O.P.No.178 of 1998 dated 02-12-2006 on the file of the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad to the extent the award fastened liability on it in respect of compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein (claimants 1 to 3). 2. Claimant No.1 is the wife of one Augesten Joseph and claimants 2 and 3 are his children. Augesten Joseph was traveling on 13-01-1998 in a car bearing registration No.AP 09L 7418, driven by one G. Satyanarayana Rao – respondent No.4 herein (since died represented by respondents 5 to 8). While the vehicle was proceeding towards Ooty, on account of rash and negligent driving, the driver could not control the vehicle, as a result of which the car dashed against the right side rock and rolled into a ditch. The deceased was sitting on the left side of the car and died on the spot. On a complaint given by one Abbas who was an eye witness to the incident a crime was registered in Pudumanthu Police Station under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver. 3. The vehicle was insured with the appellant – insurance company. The claimants, therefore, filed the O.P. and claimed Rs.9,30,000/- towards compensation. Since the first respondent (owner) who himself was driving the offending vehicle died before the commencement of trial respondents 3 to 6 were brought on record. The appellant – Insurance Company obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contested the matter. The appellant – insurance company opposed the claim on the ground that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, but it took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The driver had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The appellant denied the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and contended that the quantum of compensation as claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal formulated the issues as to whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle of its driver and what is the just amount to which the claimants were entitled towards compensation. The first claimant examined herself as PW-1 and got examined PWs.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-9 documents were marked on their behalf. The appellant – Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses but only filed the insurance policy as Ex.B-1. 5. The Tribunal on considering the material on record and the evidence adduced awarded a sum of Rs.5,45,000/- towards pecuniary loss by computing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and applying 18 multiplier. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- in favour of claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in total awarded a sum of Rs.5,45,000/-. Assailing the same this appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and the accident was caused due to his own negligence. She would further contend that the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier 13 instead of 12 multiplier. 8. However, learned counsel appearing for the claimants on the other hand would contend that the deceased was not the driver at the time of the accident. One Satyanarayana Rao who was impleaded as respondent No.1 in the O.P. was the driver at the time of the accident and his rash and negligent act resulted in the accident. He would contend that the compensation granted is just and reasonable and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 9. It may be mentioned that one Abbas was an eye witness to the incident. He lodged complaint before the Police, Pudumanthu and the same was registered as Crime No.7 of 1998 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was examined as PW-2. In his evidence he clearly stated that on 07- 01-1998 he along with Sivam Kutti, Augesten Joseph, Satyanarayana left Hyderabad in the offending vehicle to visit South India. They visited Mysore, Kottayam, Kanyakumari and on 13-01-1998 when they were proceeding towards Ooty, Satyanarayana was driving the car. On account of his rash and negligent act he lost control on the vehicle and hit roadside rock and the vehicle rolled into a ditch. The deceased was sitting on the left side of the front seat and on account of incident he died on the spot. In addition to the evidence of PW-2, Ex.A-1 First Information Report and Ex.A-4 judgment in STR No.194 of 1998 would clearly disclose that the vehicle was being driving by Satyanarayana Rao only. He was convicted in the said case, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. It is, therefore, evident that it was Satyanarayana Rao who was driving the vehicle but not the deceased as contended by the appellant. The Tribunal also recorded the finding to the same effect. The appellant did not impeach the evidence adduced by the claimants by examining any witness or marking any other document. 10. It is, therefore, to be held that the deceased was not the driver at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven by Satyanarayana. It is also evident from the evidence that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident and the consequent death of the deceased. 11. The claimants claimed that the deceased was working as Supervisor in M/s.Metafab Engineers, Fabricators and Errectors and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. To support the contention they filed Ex.A-9 salary certificate and also examined the Proprietor as PW-3. The Proprietor categorically deposed that the deceased was working in his concern as Supervisor and his monthly salary was Rs.5,000/-. This evidence was also not impeached by the appellant. 12. Having regard to the same the Tribunal rightly assessed the annual income at Rs.60,000/- and by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the annual pecuniary loss at Rs.40,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 45 years the multiplier 13 was applied. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the correct multiplier would be only 12 but not 13. It may be mentioned that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] in case of a person aged between 41 and 45, the multiplier 14 should be applied. 13. Having regard to the fact that the accident took place on 13- 01-1998 it cannot be said that the multiplier 13 was wrongly applied. The Tribunal also rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses which do not require any interference. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the total amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. 14. There are no merits in the appeal and is accordingly, dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J July 22, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.2810 of 2007 July 22, 2010 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121