IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.25 OF 2008 Between: Daravath Nandam & another ..... Appellants AND A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, R/o. Head Office, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2728, Cantonment Depot. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.25 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.726 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet, dated 11.04.2007. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that Daravath Ramesh, aged 17 years, studying 10th class was proceeding on scooter AP 10P 4619 on 18.11.2006 at about 7.50 a.m. when near Rama Rao’s Mango Garden in Timmapur village shivar, an APSRTC bus No.AP 11Z 2728 dashed the scooter. Daravath Ramesh sustained injuries on the head, leg and other parts of the body and died on the spot. Bommalaramaram police registered Crime No.105 of 2006 against the bus driver and a post-mortem over the dead body of Daravath Ramesh was conducted in the Area Hospital at Bhongir. The parents/appellants filed a claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner of the bus-APSRTC stating that the deceased was a clever student who would have pursued further studies and settled in a good position in life and they lost their source of dependency in their old age. 3. The respondent corporation did not contest the petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal framed points for consideration about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants for compensation. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 during the course of enquiry. 4. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the contents of Ex.A1-First Information Report, Ex.A2-copy of the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A3-Inquest report and Ex.A4- charge sheet showing that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus. The Tribunal noted the age of the deceased shown as 17 years in Ex.A2-Panchanama and Ex.A5-Post-mortem report and further noted that the deceased was studying 10th class at the time of his death and was not married. The Tribunal took into account the age of the mother for the assessment of compensation which was 35 years and considered that Ex.A7 proved the boy studying 10th class by the time of his death. The Tribunal referred to two precedents in which Rs.3,60,000/- was granted as compensation in one case from which some percentage of the amount was deducted towards contributory negligence and another decision where the contribution was assessed as Rs.20,000/- per annum for children in between 10 to 15 years. The Tribunal accordingly assessed the compensation payable in this case on the notional income fixed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at Rs.15,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd with the same and applied a multiplier of 17 to assess the loss of dependency at Rs.1,70,000/-, while it also considered loss of love and affection to be compensable with Rs.10,000/-. On the total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-, the Tribunal felt that interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the deposit and proportionate costs also should be awarded. The future prospects of the boy were not taken into consideration as the deceased has no fixed income nor had any definite future prospects at that age. 5. The parents of the deceased consequently filed this appeal contending that the entire compensation as claimed should have been awarded as the future earnings were not properly assessed and the deduction of 1/3rd should not have been made. The parents also contended that funeral expenses were not awarded and loss of estate was also not considered. Interest was also awarded at a very low scale and the award based on guess and estimate has to be interfered with by awarding the balance of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 6. Heard Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus was not challenged by the corporation by way of any cross appeal or cross objections and the said finding has to be taken as having become final. If so, the parents of the deceased are undoubtedly entitled to just and adequate compensation from the corporation, the owner of the bus, who is vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the consequences that ensued. 8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants relied on certain precedents commencing from MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. LAXMAN IYER[1], wherein the Apex Court, referring to the earlier precedents, opined that the compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the pecuniary benefits. On facts, the compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal and the High Court in respect of the 18 year old boy who was a good student but was unemployed and unmarried, from which 25% was deducted towards the contributory negligence of the deceased himself was upheld. Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants also relied on MANWARI VS. HARSH VARDHAN AND OTHERS[2], wherein the deceased was a six year old girl and the Delhi High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The High Court referred to three precedents to arrive at a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the basis and application of the multiplier as justifiable with reference to the age of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri C. Vikram Chandra also referred to HUKMABATI VS. PUNJAB ROADWAYS[3], wherein a 15 year old boy studying 10th class was the deceased and was found to be a brilliant student and the only male child for the widowed mother. The deceased also had a younger sister and it was observed that it is impossible to estimate the magnitude of the calamity which has fallen on the parents and no amount of money can bring back their dead son to the helpless parents. The learned Judge observed that while no basis exists for estimating the future pecuniary benefits, in case of young children which the parents lost by the death, what is to be kept in mind is that normally, children belonging to the lower middle class and poorer sections render financial assistance to their parents. It was also observed that while calculating the compensation in the case of death of a child, the Court has to balance the equities and keeping all such circumstances in view including the age of the mother at 41 years for which 15 would be appropriate multiplier, the compensation was awarded at Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Court also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and conventional charges and made the total compensation payable Rs.2,90,000/-. 10. Keeping the principles laid down in the above cited precedents in view and even the principles laid down in the decisions referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned award, it is evident that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case is obviously low. 11. The deceased was studying 10th class and was found to be aged 17 years by the time of the accidental death. The notional income which should have been taken as the basis for assessing the loss of dependency to the parents could not have been confined to the notional income under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has relevance only for assessment of compensation under Section 163A/no fault liability. When the decisions cited before the Tribunal themselves assess the probable income of children of comparable age at Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessing the notional income of the deceased at such a low level is not just and reasonable. As stated in HAKMABATI’s case (supra 3), the assessment of compensation in such cases is dependent upon so many imponderables and any amount of monetary compensation can never place the parents back in the original position. In that case, the monetary loss was assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month and in MANWARI’s case (supra 2), the multiplier was adopted with reference to the age of the deceased without any deduction towards any personal expenses from the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum fixed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. In the present case, the age of the mother is stated to be 35 years and even if she were to be taken as having completed the age of 35 years by the time of the accidental death, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per SARLA VERMA & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[4], will be 15. If the probable monthly income that the deceased would have earned were to be taken at Rs.1,500/- per month as adopted in HAKMABATI’s case (supra 3), the loss of dependency of the parents calculated on the age of the mother would be Rs.2,70,000/-. If 1/3rd were to be not deducted from the notional income and the loss of dependency is assessed in the same manner as assessed by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency of the parents would come to Rs.2,55,000/-. So, as such, just and adequate compensation payable to the parents in the present case can be assessed to be some where in between Rs.2,55,000/- and Rs.2,70,000/-. Apart from the said compensation towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection. While such compensation could also have been awarded towards other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages like the funeral expenses, loss of company of child, etc. Therefore, awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- would be granting a reasonable compensation to the parents in the present case. Of course, like by the Tribunal, no further damages might be assessed on the probable loss of future prospects as the boy was still in the 10th class and his prospects are not certain or definite. 13. Under the circumstances, the compensation already awarded has to be enhanced by another Rs.90,000/- and keeping in view the distance of time for which interest has to be paid by the corporation on the enhanced portion of the compensation, the same can be restricted to 6% per annum. The proportionate costs of course, shall follow suit. 14. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P.No.726 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet, dated 11.04.2007, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation shall be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared by the impugned award. No further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding the disbursement of the compensation. The appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 4th October, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.25 OF 2008 October 4, 2010. KL [1] (2003) 8 SCC 731 2 2010 ACJ 1977 [3] 2006 ACJ 260 [4] 2009 ACJ 1298