THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2823 of 2003 Date: 19-8-2010 Between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and 1. K.Ayyanna and another … Respondents/Petitioners 3. E.Venkatesh Goud … Respondent/Respondent No.1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2823 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.3-owner of tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP21T-3343 and 2620, respectively. 2. Heard Smt. M.Seetha Devi, learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurer and Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2- claimants, who are the parents of deceased Lakshmanna, a young man of 20 years. 3. This appeal is filed by the insurer against the order and decree dated 21-02-2003 in M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Kurnool in awarding a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their deceased son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16-4-1998 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending tractor and trailor. 4. The contentions of the learned standing counsel for the insurer are two fold – firstly; that the deceased died not in an accident because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the tractor and trailor, secondly; the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 5. As regards the first contention, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the insurer that the deceased actually died from a hay-loaded bullock-cart, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same later. In order to substantiate this contention, she relied on Exs.B-2 copy of First Information Report in Crime No.29 of 1998 of Alampur Police Station and Ex.B-3 copy of inquest report, which show that the deceased died falling from a bullock-cart. 6. But, it is the evidence on record that Ex.A-1 is the charge-sheet in C.C.No.95 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. The said charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the above said tractor and trailor for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC. Ex.A-2 is the post-mortem certificate, which shows that the deceased sustained grazed abrasions over head, hands and legs and such injuries were possible when the vehicle passed on a person and those injuries were not possible by fell on a heap of small stones or gravel from a bullock-cart. 7. The most important piece of evidence is Ex.A-3, which is the judgment in C.C.No.95 of 1998, in which the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted and prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and was eventually convicted on merits. 8. Therefore, obviously there is evidence and counter evidence as regards the cause of death in the shape of Exs.B-2 and B-3 on one hand (on behalf of the insurer) and Exs.A-1 to A-3 on the other (on behalf of the claimants), whereby the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted after a full length trial. 9. The question now posed before this Court by both sides is as to whether which version is to be accepted and which is not to be ? 10. The Tribunal had discussed elaborately about the veracity of these two stands and the documents Exs.B-2 and B-3 relied on by the insurer and arrived at an eventual conclusion that those documents could have been manipulated with the connivance of the Police and in my considered view, the possibility cannot also be ruled out. 11. Added to the above, the charge-sheet Ex.A-1 in C.C.No.95 of 1998 was filed by the same Police, who also filed FIR Ex.B-2 in Crime No.29 of 1998 of Alampur Police Station and Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate issued by the competent doctor and Ex.A-3 judgment in C.C.No.95 of 1998 are to be treated, in my considered view, as conclusive evidence to place reliance on. 12. The Police, who issued Exs.B-2 and B-3 -- FIR and inquest report, had also charge-sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle in C.C.No.95 of 1998 after filing charge-sheet in Ex.A-1. The charge-sheet filed in C.C.No.95 of 1998 and the judgment rendered therein against the driver of the offending vehicle, in my considered view, are authentic and conclusive as regards the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident. Therefore, the first contention of the learned standing counsel for the insurer is liable to be rejected. 13. So far as the other contention i.e., the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had applied the multiplier ‘16’ taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years. The learned standing counsel for the insurer points out that multiplier ‘16’ was applied taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years, which is erroneous. According to her, as per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], multiplier ‘15’ is to be applied. 14. At the same time, it is to be noticed that the income of the deceased was notionally fixed as Rs.15,000/- per annum by the Tribunal. It can also be fixed at a higher rate. Therefore, even though the Tribunal had applied multiplier ‘16’ it is only a just marginal increase but not a substantial. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 15. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. Parties to bear respective costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2823 of 2003 19th August, 2010. (Ak) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121