IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.180 of1999. Date:12.11.2009. Between:- M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad. ..Appellant And Tasneem Jaha and others. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.09.1998 passed in O.P.No.1535 of 1996 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Jahangir Baig, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.11.1996. Claimant No.1 is the wife. Claimant Nos.2 to 6 are the children and claimant Nos.7 and 8 are the parents of the deceased. According to them, on 18.11.1996, at about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased was going on his scooter bearing No.AP 11 U 334 from Engineering College towards Osmania Railway gate, an auto (LMV Goods vehicle) bearing No.AP 11U 334 coming from Tarnaka in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, who fell down and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.164 of 1996 was registered by the Osmania University Police Station. The claimants further plead that the deceased was working as Junior Assistant in University College of Engineering, Osmania University and was earning Rs.4,241/- per month as salary. Respondent No.9-owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The appellant/insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ex.B-1-copy of the insurance policy was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver and accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month though the salary certificate – Ex.A-1 shows that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4,241/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier as “15” though the suitable multiplier applicable is “12” for the age of the deceased, who was aged 42 years as per the Post Mortem Report – Ex.A-4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the appeal itself is not maintainable questioning the quantum of compensation, as the appellant did not apply and obtain any permission for filing the application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the appellant/insurer has not obtained any permission by filing necessary application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of such permission, the appellant is not entitled to question the quantum of compensation awarded. Even otherwise, having regard to the marginal difference to the amount mentioned in Ex.A-1-salary certificate and the salary taken into consideration by the Tribunal, the estimation of the loss of dependency made by the Tribunal by taking salary of Rs.4,500/- per month does not call for interference at this length of time i.e., more than ten years after passing of the Award. Similarly, having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged only 42 years when he was working as Junior Assistant in University College of Engineering, Osmania University at the time of death, the application of multiplier as “15” by the Tribunal need not be interfered with at this length of time i.e., about thirteen years after the accident. The deceased has left behind as many as eight legal representatives and the total amount of compensation awarded is Rs.5,55,000/- and for this reason also, the Award passed does not call for interference at this stage. In the above circumstances, the Award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 12th November, 2009 AMD