THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1501 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard. 2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the compensation granted to the parents of the deceased K.V. Rama Krishna Raju, who died in a motor accident on 06.07.2001. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, on 06.07.2001 at about 11.30 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on a scooter near Yendada, the lorry bearing No.AS 21 1501 was parked in the middle of the road without any traffic indication, as a result of which, the accident occurred and he received injuries and died. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 29 years and passed B.Com., B.B.M., and also computer decree, and he was said to be in Singapore for about two years and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month at Singapore, the deceased has got a future and the petitioners are the dependants on him. 3. 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, filed a counter, denying the material allegations about the age, income and the dependency of the petitioners. The petitioners are put to strict proof of the valid and effective licence and it is also further pleaded that the owner and the insurer of the scooter are necessary parties. The amount for compensation claimed is excessive. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.14. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.4,53,800/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the income fixed at Rs.5,100/- per month by the lower Tribunal is not correct and the deceased was not earning. But, the claim of the petitioners is that the deceased was in Singapore and employed for some time there. Therefore, the employment opportunities or potentialities of the deceased to earn cannot be disputed. The lower Tribunal has taken a reasonable view of the fixing the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.5,100/- per month. But, however, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower tribunal has only deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The law is now well settled that in case of an unmarried, the deduction for personal expenses should be half. Therefore, taking into consideration the settled principles, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,550/- and the contribution can be fixed at Rs.2,500/-, the annual contribution comes to Rs.30,000/-. Evidently the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration and she is said to be aged about 50 and it is not in dispute that the multiplier the applicable is ‘11’. Therefore, the total compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. The petitioners shall be entitled for a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. The total compensation petitioners entitled is Rs.3,40,000/- and therefore, the order of the lower Tribunal is modified and the compensation is granted to a tune of Rs.3,40,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there is contributory negligence. But, however, the tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry in parking the vehicle in the middle of the road. No investigation was conducted by the appellant to know the truth of the allegations. Police have also investigated into the case and there being no other evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the plea of contributory negligence cannot be considered. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the policy relied upon by the petitioners in the lower tribunal is fake, the policy and certain documents are sought to be filed before the Court. As can be seen from the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle was said to have been insured and by the date of the incident there was an effective policy in force. Sitting in appeal at this stage, it is very difficult to accept the plea of the appellant company that the policy is a fake one when no specific plea was taken in the Counter and when no evidence was also adduced before the lower Tribunal and when there is no investigation also conducted by the insurance company to show that the policy claimed is a fake one. 9. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the request of the counsel for the appellant for remanding the matter to decide about the validity of the policy. However, it will not defeat the rights of the appellant to proceed against the owner of the vehicle in case the plea of fake policy is true. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the claim for compensation of the petitioners is restricted to Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The apportioned amount shall be equal as ordered by the lower Tribunal. Each party shall bear their own costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 07.07.2011 INL