IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4604 of 2003 Between: Vontela Bhoom Reddy .. Appellant AND D. Anjaneyulu Varma and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 15-09-2003 in O.P.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Vontela Vijender Reddy, aged about 28 years and working as Manager in M/s. Maruthi Stone Crushers, Choppadandi, was involved in a motor accident on 22-12-2001 at about 11.15 A.M. when Van No.AP-15-T-8894 dashed against his scooter near NTR statute at Karimnagar. The van was being driven rashly and negligently in high speed and Vijender Reddy, died due to fatal injuries sustained in the accident. Vijender Reddy was claimed to be earning at Rs.5,000/- per month contributed entirely to the family and the parents aged 52 and 48 years respectively claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the van. While the driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the owner-the 2nd respondent stated about the van being validly insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent-insurer put the claimants to strict proof and contended that the owner and insurer of the scooter are also necessary parties as there was negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. The valid driving licence for the van driver and valid insurance for the vehicle were also denied. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the subsistence of insurance for the van and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During the course of enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van as stated by the eye-witness-PW.2 and in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-Inquest report and Ex.A.3-Charge sheet. Ex.B.1 was considered to be showing existence of a valid and subsisting insurance for the vehicle with the 3rd respondent and the parents/the claimants were considered entitled for the compensation for the death of their son. The age of the mother was accepted to be 48 years as stated in the petition for which the appropriate multiplier was stated to be 13 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.7-salary certificate and opined that in the absence of any register showing the payment of wages to the deceased, the salary cannot be accepted as claimed and assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd of the income, the annual loss of dependency was held to be Rs.7,968/- and total loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.1,03,884/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/- each is awarded towards loss of love and affection to the parents and the compensation was rounded off to Rs.1,14,000/- over which interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs were also awarded. The claimants were aggrieved by the non-grant of compensation as claimed and contended that the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.7 could not have been ignored in the absence of any rebuttal evidence and the income could not have been assessed at such a low sum at Rs.1,000/-. Hence, they sought for balance compensation as claimed. Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Sunder Ramaiah, learned counsel representing Smt. V. Ratna Kumari, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being the cause for the accident and the death of Vijender Reddy was not challenged by any party and similarly, the ownership of the vehicle with the 2nd respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 3rd respondent are also not in dispute. The joint and several liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle to justly and adequately compensate the parents of the deceased cannot, therefore, be in dispute. Even in the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, the deceased was described by the 1st claimant, who gave the report as a private employee. In Ex.A.2-Inquest report also the deceased was described as a private employee and the fact that he was going on their scooter as stated in Exs.A.1 and A.2 showed that the private employment of the deceased should have been of a decent level. Ex.A.3-Charge sheet specified that the investigation also disclosed the deceased to be working as a private employee and the Post Mortem report-Ex.A.4 assessed the age of the deceased as 28 years as specified in all the other documents. Ex.A.7 is the Salary certificate issued by M/s. Maruthi Stone Crusher about the monthly salary being Rs.5,000/-. It is true that PW.3, the Managing Director of the employer of the deceased, did not file any registers to show the wages or the salary of the deceased, but except the suggestion on behalf of the respondents, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of PW.3. Even if the evidence of PW.1 about the salary of the deceased is tainted with interestedness, the employer was not shown to be having any motive to resort to falsehood to help the claimants. PW.1 stated that the deceased was working as Manager since two years prior to his death under PW.3. In the absence of any evidence rebutting or contradicting the claims of PWs.1 and 3 or the contents of Ex.A.7, there would have been no justifiable reason for the Tribunal to reject the earnings of the deceased as a Manager of a Stone Crusher at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act presumes even a non-earning person to be earning Rs.15,000/- p.a. and even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time would have been not less than Rs.2,000/- per month. In the absence of any reason to reject the claims of claimants about the quantum of income of the deceased, the probable income should have been taken as Rs.60,000/- at Rs.5,000/- per month and if the loss of such income were to be assessed for the future with reference to the age of the mother at 48 years and applying an appropriate multiplier 13, the total loss of income would have been Rs.7,80,000/-. Even if 50% of the same were to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,90,000/- and even if an element of exaggeration in the monthly income of the deceased were to be presumed, still the compensation claimed by the parents at Rs.2,50,000/- would accommodate the reduction of claimed income by more than 1/3rd, to grant the compensation as claimed. The parents should also have been entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as held in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) and would have been further entitled to another Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. As against their entitlement to compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-, their claim before the Tribunal and this Court thus was restricted to Rs.2,50,000/-, which has to be accordingly granted by enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,36,000/- as claimed. In view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid, the same can be restricted to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs should be awarded, on the enhanced compensation also. In the result, the award dated 15-09-2003 in O.P.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced compensation shall also be shared between the parents/claimants in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-03-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298