IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4092 of 2003 and Cross Objections C.M.A. No.4092 of 2003: Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by its Branch Manager, Nizamabad .. Appellant AND Choti Bee and others .. Respondents Cross Objections: Between: Choti Bee and others .. Cross Objectors AND The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by its Branch Manager, Nizamabad and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.809 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 29-07-2002. Jumma Khan was coming with his push cart selling ‘pally batana’ near Nehrunagar bus stand at about 4 P.M. on 30-09-1996 when lorry No.AP 37T 7927, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against him and his push cart. For the multiple injuries and fractures, Jumma Khan was treated at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, but he died on the same day. The wife and two daughters of Jumma Khan claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, later enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- by way of amendment of the claim, stating that the deceased aged 42 years was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, contributed in entirety to the family. They also stated that the push cart was damaged to an extent of Rs.5,000/- and they spent Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment. The claimants also contended that the wife lost her consortium and the children lost the father’s love and affection and therefore, the owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied all the allegations of the claimants and the driver of the lorry having a valid driving licence at the relevant time or the lorry having subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.4 charge-sheet apart from the contents of Ex.A.2 inquest report. The lorry driver was held to be rash and negligent in driving the vehicle leading to the accident. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased at 45 years on the basis of the inquest report and post-mortem report in the absence of any other documentary evidence and in the light of P.W.1, the wife, stating the age only approximately. The Tribunal assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month from his business on push cart, as the Mandal Revenue Officer examined as R.W.1 had no personal knowledge and the Village Secretary in his report did not support the estimate in Ex.A.6. On the income of Rs.2,000/- per month, the Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the loss of dependency at Rs.2,70,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. On a total compensation of Rs.2,95,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs and gave further directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer filed the appeal questioning the grant of exorbitant compensation without any oral or documentary evidence in support thereof. The assessed monthly income and application of multiplier were questioned and the impugned award was requested to be reversed. The claimants preferred cross-objections contending that the monthly income ought to have been fixed at Rs.6,000/- based on Ex.A.6 and just and adequate compensation should have been fixed taking the age of the deceased as 42 years. Interest ought to have been granted at 12 per cent per annum. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kuldeep Jadav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the cross-objectors are heard. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident is concerned, there was no specific challenge by either party and at any rate, the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.2 supported by Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 proved the same. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and the subsistence of a valid insurance policy with the 2nd respondent are also not in dispute and therefore, what remains to be considered is only the quantum of just and adequate compensation payable jointly and severally by both the respondents. In assessing the age of the deceased for the purpose, the Tribunal rightly relied on by the estimate by independent mediators under Ex.A.2 inquest panchanama and the assessment by the medical expert in Ex.A.5 post-mortem report in the absence of any other documentary evidence and even the oral evidence giving the age only approximately. Though Ex.A.6 income certificate said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer was pressed into service, the said officer himself as R.W.1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge in the matter and the Mandal Revenue Inspector or the Village Secretary did not record the statements of any witnesses in this regard. The certification by the Revenue Inspector and the Village Secretary was, thus, not based on any record nor did they claim any personal knowledge about the occupation or income of the deceased and hence, the rejection of Ex.A.6 by the Tribunal and estimation of such income at Rs.2,000/- per month with the wisdom and experience of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. A person selling ‘pally batana’ on a push cart in a rural area in 1996 earning Rs.6,000/- per month is an obvious exaggeration, if the Court were to take judicial notice of even the salaries which Government Servants were earning at about that time. The Tribunal on such reasonable estimate rightly deducted one-third towards the possible personal expenses, had the deceased been alive and applied the multiplier of 15. Irrespective of the logic behind that at that time, as per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], 14 happens to be the appropriate multiplier for a person of that age and multiplier being a guide for assessment of compensation in approximation, difference of a single number need not result in any reassessment at this distance of time. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.25,000/- in total towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, while the same was limited to Rs.20,000/- by Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra), but a marginal difference need not result in any interference at this distance of time, as the appellant has deposited only Rs.1,75,000/- out of the compensation awarded under the interim orders of this Court and the balance was not paid. Taking the decrease in the value of rupee and inflation over the years, any marginal difference in the compensation awarded need not be interfered with and the cross- objectors also failed in probablising any justification for treating the deceased to be younger or earning more and even the interest granted was in accordance with the accepted norms. The impugned award, therefore, does not suffer from any vice worth interference and hence, the appeal and the cross- objections are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-02-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298x