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.3117 of 2008 Dated:21-11-2011 Between: National Insurance Company Limited. ….Appellant. And Vale Surya Sekhara Rao 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.3117 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur on 10.08.2007. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Vale Arun Kumar, filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for his death in a motor vehicle accident. According to them, on 31.05.2004 at about 7.30 A.M. while the deceased and another were proceeding on a motor cycle from Guntur to Phirangipuram and when they reached near M.B.T.S. Polytechnic college, Nallapaud, the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATK 9068 suddenly stopped the lorry on the middle of the road without taking any precautions and reversed the said lorry and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment and he died while undergoing treatment in the said hospital. At the time of the accident, the deceased completed B.Tech (Mechanical) in J.N.T.U, Hyderabad. He was brilliant in his education and would have earned more and spent the same towards the petitioner and the petitioners have lost their future income due to the sudden death of their son. They have sold away their property for the education of the deceased. The owner of the lorry remained exparte. The insurance company has filed the counter denying the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place, age and occupation of the deceased and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same and pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.ATK 9068 as such caused death of the deceased? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount, from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held 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 lorry. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal by taking into consideration that the deceased being an engineering graduate would have earned Rs.7,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by applying multiplier ‘13’, awarded a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- towards of loss of dependency. Apart from that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges. In all, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,01,000/- towards compensation. The standing counsel for the insurance company has pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and since the deceased is unmarried, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is to be reduced. According to P.W.1, the deceased completed B.Tech. in Mechanical engineering by the date of accident and he is a brilliant student as per Exs.A.6, A.8, A.11 and A.12. Since the deceased completed mechanical engineering by the date of accident, in view of the decision rendered in “B.Ramuklamma and others V. M/S Venkatesh Bus Union, rep. by A.M.Velu Mudaliyar, Bangalore and another (2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.)”, the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased is unmarried as on the date of accident, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is in between 45-50 years, the appropriate multiplier i.e. applicable is ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.6,000 X 12 X 13 = Rs.9,36,000/-. Apart from that the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra). Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for Rs.9,46,000/-, which is more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation, the compensation payable is restricted to Rs.8,01,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest on the compensation, but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the interest to which the petitioners are entitled is only 6% on the total compensation amount. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest on the awarded amount from 7.5% to 6% P.A. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:21-11-2011 Ksp