THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO M.A.C.M.A No.823 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy in O.P.No.450 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that on 18.06.2005 at about 8.30 p.m, while Kolla Venkata Raghavendra Babji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), aged about 32 years, working as Software Engineer with M/s.Birlasoft Limited on a monthly salary of Rs.43,150/-, was travelling in Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-28/V 1577 and when it reached the limits of Reddy Bavi on National Highway No.9, dashed with a lorry bearing No.AP-23/T 6363, which was alighted by the side of the road. The deceased, who sustained injuries, was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The Police of Choutuppal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2005 against the driver of the Qualis for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 I.P.C., in which charge sheet was also filed. The wife, minor daughter and father of the deceased filed the above O.P against the owner of Qualis and Insurance Company with whom the said Qualis was insured, claiming compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-. The first respondent-owner of the Qualis filed a counter denying his liability stating that the vehicle has been insured with the second respondent- Insurance Company, and therefore, the second respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. The second respondent also filed counter opposing the claim. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? and whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant-wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, though none were examined, Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, especially, the evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A.1, A.2, A.5 and A.6, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Qualis, and accordingly answered issue No.1. Insofar as issue No.2 is concerned, The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.A.8-salary certificate, Ex.A.9-pay slips, and Ex.A.10-joining details of the deceased, concluded that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,37,364/- per annum, and after deductions worked out the annual salary at Rs.4,81,080/- and after deducting Rs.2,400/- per annum towards professional tax, Rs.78,000/- towards conveyance and 12% on the basic salary towards Provident Fund, arrived at Rs.3,76,315/- per annum, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual contribution was worked out to Rs.2,50,877/-, which was rounded off to Rs.2,50,870/-. Since the date of birth of the deceased, as per his S.S.C Certificate is 07.08.1973, his age was 32 years at the time of accident, and therefore, the Tribunal applied ‘15’ multiplier and accordingly awarded compensation at Rs.37,63,050/-, besides Rs.15,000/- towards loss consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, an amount of Rs.37,93,050/- was awarded towards compensation. Questioning the same, the Insurance Company filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that as per the judgment of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the relevant multiplier for the age group of the deceased is “16”. Therefore, he is not disputing about the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, but, only contended that the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company, with whom the said lorry has been insured, have not been impleaded, and therefore, the entire liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant herein which insured the crime vehicle. He further contended that necessary deductions have to be made towards the liability of the lorry involved in the crime and therefore, atleast 1/3rd should be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded. We do not see any force in the said submission. P.W.3-the driver of the lorry, who was examined on behalf of the claimants stated that on the date of incident, himself and another driver Appala Raju were proceeding to Vijayawada from Hyderabad; that they alighted the lorry near Reddy Bavi Village on left side of the road and went for dinner; that after finishing their dinner when they came near the lorry, they saw the crime vehicle dashed to their stationed lorry from behind and that there were seven inmates in the crime vehicle, out of them two died on the spot, two others seriously injured and remaining persons sustained injuries. When he was cross examined at length, he denied that the said lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Further, Ex.A.1- copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.5 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A.2-charge sheet and Ex.A.6-M.V.I Report reveal that the driver of the crime vehicle was responsible for such accident. The appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the accident was resulted due to the parking of the lorry in the middle of the road and the parking lights were switched off. In the absence of such evidence adduced by the Insurance Company, it cannot be said that the owner of the lorry and the insurance company with whom the said lorry was insured are equally responsible and liable to pay compensation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ RAJA ELANGO, J Dt.18.04.2011 va [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129