THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.939 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent – insurer against the order/award dated 10.10.2006 in O.P. No.1250 of 2005, which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) for a claim of Rs.13,70,240/-, whereunder the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Warangal (for short, the Tribunal) awarded an amount of Rs.10,09,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum. 02. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. 03. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 04. Learned counsel for the insurer contended in the grounds of appeal that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law; the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurer without any basis that the deceased/rider of the scooter also contributed to the accident, that was admittedly taken place near the cross roads and he must be diligent, had he been, he could have averted the accident; that the Tribunal also gravely erred in taking the gross salary instead of taking net salary, including from the evidence of P.W.3 the net salary is only Rs.5,400/-; the Tribunal went wrong in taking multiplier 16 instead of 15 for the age of the deceased 38 years and also in awarding the said huge compensation. Hence to exonerate the insurer otherwise reduce the compensation to a just sum. Learned counsel for the insurer reiterated the same in the course of hearing. 05. Whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the claimants that the award of the Tribunal holds good and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 06. Perused the material on record. 07. Now the points that arise for consideration are, i. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unsustainable and the insurer is entitled to exonerate, if not, quantum is required to be reduced? ii. To what result? Point No.i: 08. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the so called eye witnesses with reference to Ex.A.1 – F.I.R. and Ex.A.2 – charge sheet filed against the tractor driver, on 02.02.2003 at the cross-roads near bus shelter Timmapur while the deceased was proceeding from Timmapur to Warangal, the tractor and trailor proceeded in wrong side and dashed scooter, from which the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries, immediately he was admitted to Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda, therefrom he was shifted to Krishna Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, and on 06.02.2003 i.e. four days later while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries. From the above, there is nothing to show that there is contribution of the deceased to the accident. Though it is at the cross roads, the contention of learned counsel for the insurer that at the cross roads the injured must be diligent while proceeding is untenable and is equally applicable to the tractor driver that too while he was proceeding in wrong side. 09. Coming to the insurer’s liability is concerned, there is nothing to show, from Ex.B.1 – policy covered the risk, as to how the insurer is not liable, for not even the tractor driver not possessed any valid driving licence, despite in the charge sheet not mentioned the offence under Section 181 of the Act i.e. imperfect licence. Ex.A.5, column No.17, also speaks licence particulars of the driver. Thus there is nothing to exonerate the insurer to any extent from the liability. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, even taken for the argument sake, as per the evidence of P.W.3 with reference to the salary of the deceased, Ex.A.6 - service book and pay particulars, the gross salary is Rs.6,970/- and as per the evidence of P.W.3 the net salary is Rs.5,400/-. Ex.A.4 – Post Mortem Examination report and Ex.A.6 service book show the age of the deceased is below 40 years. Hence, 50% increase is required to be taken as prospective earning capacity, if that is taken it comes to Rs.8,100/-, therefrom 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.6,075/- per month, as per the expression of the Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], for the age group of 35 to 40, 15 multiplier is applicable, then the loss of earnings comes to Rs.10,93,500/- (6,075/-x12x15). Besides the loss of earnings, as per the expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[2], the petitioners are entitled for the medical expenses covered by Ex.A.7-bills for the period of the treatment, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards care and guidance of two minor children. It is more than what the tribunal awarded. Thereby there is nothing to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. 11. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. Point No.ii: 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. _______________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:19-11-2014 bv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2013 ACJ 1403