IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.3102 and 3106 of 2003 C.M.A.No.3102 of 2003 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Regional Office-II, Visakhapatnam. .. Appellant AND Kuthuputi Pushpa Kumari and 2 others .. Respondents C.M.A.No.3106 of 2003 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Regional Office-II, Visakhapatnam. .. Appellant AND Krishnavathi Devi and 2 others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the awards passed in respect of the deaths caused in the same accident and are, hence, being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve identical questions of law and fact. C.M.A.No.3102 of 2003 is directed against the award dated 06-01-2003 in MOP.No.1558 of 2000, while C.M.A.No.3106 of 2003 is directed against the award dated 06-01-2003 in MOP.No.1799 of 2000 both on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The awards dated 06-01-2003 were on the claims made by the parents of Saajan Menon Kutty and Arun Kumar Tripathi respectively. Both the deceased were proceeding on a Kinetic Honda scooter No.AP-31-C-7691 on 27-09-2000 at about 2.00 P.M. and near Ayyappa temple at Visakhapatnam, tipper No.AP- 31-V-6984, owned by the 1st respondent to the claims and insured with the 2nd respondent to the claims, came in high speed being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter. The scooter got crushed under the left back side tyres of the tipper and Kutty and Tripathi died on the spot. Gajuwaka Police registered Crime No.99 of 2000 against the tipper driver and the dead bodies were subjected to Post Mortem at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Saajan Menon Kutty, aged 21 years was studying B.Com and an active sports person. His parents sought for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tipper. Arun Kumar Tripathi, was aged 22 years and studying B.Com and he was also a brilliant student and active sports person. His parents also made a claim for a similar compensation. In both the claims, the owner of the tipper remained ex parte, while the insurer did not admit the allegations of the claimants and put them to strict proof of their claims. The insurer contended that the driver, insurer and insured of Kinetic Honda scooter are also necessary parties and as the tipper driver was not rash or negligent and the claim was high and excessive, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. In both the claims, identical issues were framed by the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the tipper resulting in the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. In both the claims, two witnesses each were examined for the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 were marked in MOP.No.1558 of 2000, while Exs.A.1 and A.2 and B.1 were marked in MOP. No.1799 of 2000. The Tribunal rendered the impugned awards, firstly accepting the evidence of the eye-witness-PW.2 corroborated by the contents of First Information Report and the Charge sheet. The other circumstances on record were also referred to by the Tribunal in accepting PW.2’s version. The Tribunal considered both the deceased to be students of Degree course and prospective earners at the age of 21 and 22 years respectively. The Tribunal fixed their monthly income at Rs.1,800/- as the minimum reasonable income of an able bodied person under the Minimum Wages Act. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal and living expenses of the respective deceased and also deducted a further sum of Rs.100/- per month towards pocket and transport expenses. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 for assessing the total loss of dependency based on the annual loss of dependency at Rs.13,200/-The Tribunal ultimately awarded Rs.1,71,600/- each towards loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate, making a total of Rs.1,86,600/- each. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs in both the cases. The Tribunal held the insurer to be liable as the tipper driver was responsible for the accident and as the persons connected with Kinetic Honda are not necessary parties and as Ex.B.1-policy of insurance was valid and in force. The Tribunal gave further directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer challenged the said awards on identical grounds contending that the multiplier applicable as per Bhagavan Das v. Mohd. Arif (1987 (2) ALT 137) ought to have been applied to the claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not the multiplier under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 applicable only to the claims under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Apart from the applicability of lower multiplier, the assessment of income or loss of dependency are not truthful or correct. Hence, the insurer desired the compensation to be accordingly reduced. Sri G. Visweshwar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eswar, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in both the cases are heard. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are about the maintainability of the appeals in the absence of any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The claimants in both the cases came up with the claims on identical grounds for the death of their respective sons aged about 21/22 years and studying B.Com at the time of accident and death. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper is not challenged by any party and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent to the claims and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent to the claims are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimants for the death of their respective children, therefore, cannot be in doubt. The Tribunal assessed the deceased to be capable of earning Rs.1,800/- per month and the said assessment cannot be considered high or excessive when the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 considers even non-earning persons to be earning Rs.15,000/-p.a. and when the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act even for the unskilled labourers would not have been less at about relevant time. The application of multiplier 13 with reference to the ages of mothers at 49 and 50 years respectively is in tune with Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and cannot be questioned. The only deviation from the binding principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) is in the quantum of deduction for personal and living expenses made by the Tribunal. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claim was by the parents, the decision laid down that the deduction shall be normally 50% in respect of bachelors and in the absence of any special or specified circumstances to deviate from the normal rule, the deduction should have been thus 50%. If so, a sum of Rs.31,200/- was granted in excess under the head of loss of dependency and the compensation has to be accordingly reduced. The claimants sought to resist the appeals with reference to the alleged absence of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and what is in question herein and sought to be contested is the manner of assessment of compensation, but not the liability to pay compensation on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claims have been made or the owner of the vehicle. If the grant of compensation on an assessment opposed to the principles laid down by the Apex Court is in question in these appeals, the same cannot be considered to be within the prohibition against the continuance of the appeals without the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As the reduction of compensation being considered now is with reference to binding principles laid down by the Apex Court, any technicalities cannot stand in the way of modifying the award to be in terms of the law declared by the Apex Court. Therefore, the awards in MOP.Nos.1558 of 2000 and 1799 of 2000 dated 06-01-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, are modified by reducing the respective compensations by Rs.31,200/- each or in other words, by granting a compensation of Rs.1,55,400/- only each, while the interest shall remain at the same rate as granted by the impugned awards and proportionate costs shall be in proportion to the amounts awarded. The apportionment of the compensation between the claimants shall be in the same proportion ordered by the Tribunal under the impugned awards and the appeals are allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-03-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298