IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1714 of 2006 Between: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant AND Vinod Kumar & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1714 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award, dated 12.05.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. N.C. Besra was coming on motor cycle No.AP 10 J 2342 on 12.05.2003 at about 6.30 p.m. when petrol tanker No. AP 9V 6111, driven in high speed, dashed him from behind near Alugaddabavi killing him on the spot. The dead body was subjected to post mortem at Gandhi Hospital. Chilkalaguda Police registered Crime No.157 of 2003 against the driver of the petrol tanker. Besra, aged about 54 years, was working as Chief Draftsman in South Central Railway in Engineering Department with a monthly salary of Rs.18,660/-. His wife and four daughters made a claim for Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation from the owner and insurer of the petrol tanker. 3. The owner of the vehicle contested the claim contending that the deceased was trying to overtake the oil tanker from the left side, applied sudden brakes to save a pedestrian lady and fell down as he lost his balance and was crushed under the left rear wheels of the oil tanker and, hence, the first respondent/owner desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The second respondent/insurer also claimed that the deceased himself had driven his motor cycle rashly and negligently without observing the traffic rules and without having a valid driving licence. The insurer pleaded that the accident was not reported to the insurer and the insurer is not liable to pay the excessive compensation claimed. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 and B-1 during the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker as probablised by the First Information Report-Ex.A-1, the Charge Sheet-Ex.A-2 and the Inquest Report-Ex.A-3 and the eye witness account of P.W.4. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal accepted Ex.A-6-Income Certificate and Ex.A-7-Income tax Return to conclude that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.18,660/- and the net salary was Rs.11,671/- after deductions. The extract of the Service Register-Ex.A-11 showed the deceased to be aged about 54 years and Ex.A-8-Pan Card and Ex.A-9-Driving Licence mentioned the date of birth of the deceased confirming the said age. The Tribunal, therefore, applied a multiplier of 11 to the income of the deceased, reduced by 1/3rd deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at a total dependency of Rs.10,27,048/-. The Tribunal also considered the claimants to be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and though the claimants were, thus, entitled to Rs.10,37,048/-, the compensation was restricted to Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the claimants payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the Tribunal gave further directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 7. The challenge by the insurer against the impugned award in this appeal is with reference to a wrong multiplier being applied and the negligence of the deceased being ignored. The Tribunal was, hence, contended to have granted excessive compensation. 8. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, while the owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. 9. Though a feeble attempt was made in the grounds of appeal to question the findings about the cause for the accident, there was no oral or documentary evidence for the respondents before the Tribunal to contradict the eye witness account of the independent witness-P.W.4 or the contents of the earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report or the result of independent statutory investigation in Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet or the opinion of the independent mediators for the inquest under Ex.A-3-Inquest Report. Based on the circumstances arising out of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in its conclusion about the rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker being the cause for the accident. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the determination of the age of the deceased was on the basis of his date of birth specified in Ex.A-8-Pan Card and Ex.A-9-Driving Licence, apart from his Service Register-Ex.A-11. Similarly, the quantum of salary received was assessed on the strength of Ex.A- 6-Income Certificate and Ex.A-7-Income Tax Return and to doubt the contents of any of the documents relied on by the Tribunal, there was absolutely no vitiating circumstance. In fact, the Tribunal straight away considered only the net salary of the deceased without considering the deductions to a tune of Rs.6,989/- without even analyzing the nature of the deductions and whether the same could have been taken into account as income. Though the dependents were five in number, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[1], if the dependents are between 4 and 6, the deduction should have been 1/4th. The appropriate multiplier applicable to a person of the age of 54 years as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) is 11 and, therefore, the quantum of compensation further restricted to the quantum claimed is not susceptible to interference on any ground. The rate of interest adopted at 7.5% per annum was not shown in any manner to be deviating from the rate of interest adopted by the scheduled banks at the relevant time and, therefore, the award is not bound to be interfered with in this appeal. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1714 of 2006 Date: 16th September, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298