THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1816 of 2007 J U D G M E N T: This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the claimants, who are the parents of Kum. B. Haritha (herein-after be referred to as ‘the deceased’) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No. 1245 of 2006, on 17.05.2007. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The claimants filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who was aged about 5 years at that time. According to them, on 10.12.2005, at about 07.30 a.m., the deceased girl was travelling in jeep bearing No. AP 7T 7713 from Rachapalli Village to Jadcherla to attend a marriage, when it reached the outskirts of Ranipet Village, suddenly one lorry bearing No. AP 16TV 2488 came from the opposite direction and hit the jeep, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent insurer of the lorry, it has been averred that the accident was all because of the negligence of the jeep driver. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 2488 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During trial, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and on their behalf, Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance company, Ex.B1, copy of the policy was marked during the cross- examination of P.W.1. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is manifest that the jeep was overloaded at the time of accident and there was head on collision between the jeep and the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal, on issue No.1, relying upon the decisions reported in Bijay Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta (2006(3) Supreme Court Cases 242) and Tatinenti Meena v. Shaik Mansoor Ali (2006(6) ALT 34), held that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of lorry and jeep. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 5 years and though the deceased was a non-earning member, as per Schedule-II of Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and applied the multiplier for the age of 5 years as ‘15’. Therefore, the loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- x 15). In addition thereto, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded. In total, Rs. 2,50,000/- was assessed as the total compensation. But however, since the claimants have not made the driver and owner of the jeep as parties and as the finding on Issue No.1 is to the effect that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, they are entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- only with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said amount of compensation, the appellants- claimants preferred this appeal, contending that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was head on collision between the lorry and the jeep, as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver only. Heard Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 Insurance company. The evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness, is very clear to the effect that there was a head on collision between the jeep in which the deceased girl was travelling and the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal, based on the said evidence, rightly decided that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident, and therefore, made the Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent liable to pay the compensation, as the driver and owner of the jeep were not made as parties. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. But however, keeping in view the fact that the deceased was the only daughter of the claimants, I feel that the ends of justice would be met, if Rs.38,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, if Rs. 1,25,500/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.38,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate is awarded, all put together, it comes to Rs.1,60,500/-, rounded of to Rs.1,60,000/-, to which amount, the claimants are entitled to as the compensation. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above modification, the Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 30th December 2010 ksld