THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. Nos. 1644 & 3114 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident O.P. and the parties also being common, these two appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. C.M.A. No. 1644 of 2003 is filed by the United Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MVOP NO. 389 of 1997, dated 6.3.2002; whereas, C.M.A. No. 3114 of 2003 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal in the said O.P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.1988 while the deceased Shaik Shaheb along with others was going in a jeep bearing No. MH 20/E-8176 towards Hyderabad from Nizamabad and when the jeep reached the outskirts of Vallur village of Madak District, a lorry bearing No. AP 23 T-994 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came with a high speed and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, some of the inmates of the jeep sustained grievous injuries; whereas the deceased died due to the bleeding injuries sustained by him. Hence, the wife and children of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the of the A.P.M.V. Rules, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It is stated that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was 28 years old and was earning about Rs.3,500/- per month. 3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry, who is the first respondent in the O.P. remained ex-parte and the appellant- insurance company, which is the 2nd respondent in the said O.P., while opposing the claim of the claimants, filed a written statement sating that the 1st respondent in collusion with the claimants, with a view to cause loss to the insurance-company, did not furnish full particulars with regard to the alleged accident; that the 1st respondent also failed to implead the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 23 T 994 and the owner and insurer of the jeep, who are the proper and necessary parties. It also pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid licence and permit and that the claim is highly excessive. 4. On behalf of claimant, PW. 1 was examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AP 23 T 994 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what just amount from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the deceased died in the accident in question. 7. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,64,500/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the insurance company filed the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the claimants failed to produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3500/- per month, in the absence of which, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- . He further contended that the Tribunal did not apply proper multiplier while assessing the loss of dependency. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting a sum of Rs. 4,64,500/- is just and proper? 10. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a worker in M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory, Bodhan and was earning about Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Though they have not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was earning that much amount, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the young age of the deceased and also keeping in view the fact that the deceased was not only maintaining himself, but was also maintaining his family with his earnings, had rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and at Rs.36,000/- annually. Hence, I do not find any reason to disturb the same. Normally, one third of the amount would be deducted from the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses and after deducting the said amount, the Tribunal fixed the contribution of the deceased towards his family at Rs.24,000/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 24,000 x 18). In addition to this, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. 12. However, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], a conventional amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- can be awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and where the deceased is survived by a widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- can be awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 13. In the instant case, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the head ‘loss of earnings’, which head has been wrongly mentioned as loss of earnings instead of loss of estate. Besides this, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium. While following the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case referred to above, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under both these heads. However, the sum of Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ needs no interference. Therefore, in all, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,54,500/- towards compensation instead of Rs. 4,64,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No. 1644 of 2003 is accordingly allowed in part and the respondents-claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,54,500/- as compensation instead of Rs. 4,64,500/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. So far as interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is reduced to 7.5%. Now, coming to the other appeal, namely, C.M.A. No. 3114 of 2003 filed by the respondents-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount is concerned, in view of the orders passed by me today, in C.M.A. No. 1644 of 2003, allowing the said appeal in part, no further orders are necessary in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1644 of 2003 is allowed in part and C.M.A. No. 3114 of 2003 is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 15th July, 2010 pnb [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court cases 121