THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2292 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.233 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order and decree, dated 06.06.2006, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,61,000 was awarded as compensation for the death of one P.Rama Krishna Prasad in the motor vehicle accident. The claimants filed the claim petition alleging that on 18.12.2004, at about 3.30 pm., the deceased along with his brother was going on Bajaj CD 100 motor cycle bearing No.AP- 23-J-T/R/2599 from Jogipet to Erraram Village and when they reached near Annasagar Cheruvu, a tractor bearing No.AP-23- E/6143 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed dashed the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased died instantaneously. In this connection, a case in crime No.136 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the said tractor. Hence, the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident and accordingly, deducting 50% of the total assessed compensation towards contributory negligence and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-insurance Company contended that the driving licence of the deceased was not produced before the Tribunal; that further, the Tribunal taking into account the evidence of P.W-2, who deposed that he witnessed the crime tractor and the motor cycle dashing against each other, rightly concluded that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. In view of rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the points to be determined in this appeal are as to - “1. Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident or not? 2. What is the just and reasonable compensation the claimants are entitled to?” POINT No.1: - I have perused Ex.A-1-First Information Report. In Ex.A-1, it is clearly stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the said tractor, but nothing is whispered as regards the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the said accident. This is the earliest document as regards the occurrence of the said accident and hence, more credence can be given to it. Apart from it, an independent witness-P.W-2 was also examined on behalf of the claimants who in his cross- examination denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the crime tractor. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking Ex.B-1-copy of the insurance policy, none was examined to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in fastening contributory negligence on the deceased in causing the accident and the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT No.2:- Admittedly, the deceased, who was aged about 23 years, was studying B.Sc. Micro Biology in a College. He was unmarried. Hence, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for applying the appropriate multiplier. Having regard to the age of the mother of the deceased at 45 years as on the date of death of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘15’. As the deceased was prosecuting his B.Sc., course, taking into account his future prospectus, a notional income of Rs.2,000/- per month is taken for the purpose of computing the compensation. If ½ of the said income is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,000/- per month, which works out to Rs.12,000/- per annum. As stated supra, by applying the multiplier of ‘14’, having regard to the age of the mother of the deceased at 45 years, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,61,000/- to Rs.2,52,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.91,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 21st October 2010 dr