HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO.1178 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Award dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.25 of 2000. The appellant is the wife of the deceased Nakkal Peddulu. She filed the above O.P., alleging that on 5.12.1999, at about 9.30 a.m., while the deceased and others were travelling in the jeep bearing No. AP 36 T 3950, the driver drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo bearing No. TNJ 3400, due to which the deceased and others received fatal injuries and the deceased died on the spot and another person succumbed to injuries. The police registered a case in Crime No. 186 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the said jeep. The appellant, who is the wife of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 25 years as on the date of the incident and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents 1,2 and 4 remained ex-parte. While opposing the claim petition, the insurance company filed its counter denying the various allegations levelled by the appellant. The lower Court framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 5.12.1999 at about 9.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AP 36T 9950 by its driver causing death to the deceased N. Peddulu ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased as his wife, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove her case, the appellant got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs. A1 to A15 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-insurance company, though no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. The Court below after analyzing the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep and it accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 2,17,000/- to the appellant and 4th respondent together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though the appellant filed Ex.A6, Salary Certificate, the Court below without taking that into consideration has fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 1,500/-. He further stated that even though she filed Ex.A10, study certificate to show the date of birth of the same, the Tribunal did not take that into consideration and while relying on the inquest and postmortem reports of the deceased held that the deceased was aged about 28 years and accordingly applied the multiplier of 16 and the appropriate multiplier is 18. He further contended that the Court below did not award any amount towards loss of estate, transportation etc. He, therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she deposed that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 5.12.99 and he was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident. P.W.2 ,who is an eye witness to the incident deposed in his evidence that on the date of the accident, while he was travelling in the tempo from Ellanki to Chutuppal and when the tempo reached near S. Lingotem limits, the jeep in which the deceased was travelling came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner on a wrong side and dashed against their tempo, due to which, the deceased and some of the passengers travelling in the jeep died on the spot and some others received injuries. The petitioner also filed Exs. A1 & A2, which are the certified copies of the F.I.R. and charge sheet respectively, to prove the same. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.2 and Exs. A1 and A2, held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep alone. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the appellant, the deceased was working in B.S.E.S., Bombay and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. She also filed Ex.A6, salary certificate to show that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Court below disbelieved the same on the ground that it was typed on a white paper and there was no description of the deceased. Even though there is no evidence to show that the deceased was getting salary Rs. 5,000/- per month, taking into consideration the young age of the deceased, I feel it appropriate to fix the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-per month and Rs. 42,000/- annually. However, after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased towards his family can be assessed at Rs. 28,000/-. However, in the instant case, even though the appellant filed Ex.A10, the study certificate along with the O.P. to show that the deceased was aged about 23 years, the Tribunal while taking into consideration, Exs.A3 and A4, which are the inquest and postmortem reports, opined that the deceased was aged about 28 years and accordingly applied the multiplier of 16. Admittedly, the Study Certificate is also an authenticated certificate and the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration for determining the age of the deceased and accordingly while taking the said certificate into consideration, the age of the deceased is taken as 23 years. Further, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & others ([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the deceased would be ‘18’ and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency can be assessed at Rs. 5,04,000/- (Rs.28000 x 18). In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection instead of Rs. 25,000/- as awarded by the Court below. It is also seen from the award that the Court below did not award any amount towards loss of estate. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- loss of estate. In all, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,29,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 2,17,000/-. However, the appellant sought for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and the total compensation now awarded by this Court, comes to Rs.5,29,000/-, which is more than the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant. At this stage, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court can award the compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in NAGAPPA V. GURUDAYAL SINGH ([2]) wherein it is held thus; “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’. Hence, claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court cited supra-2, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a just compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- under all the heads, as stated above. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs.2,17,000/-, the claimants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 22nd July, 2010 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE [2] 2003(1) ALD-1 (SC)