THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.411 of 2007 DATED:20.10.2010 BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. .. Appellant And Larnakar Reddy Narra and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.411 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per RKR,J) This is an appeal from the award dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2848 of 2003. The New India Assurance Company Limited which is the second respondent before the Tribunal below is the appellant herein. The learned Tribunal in respect of the death of a student aged about 20 years studying II year MBBS due to involvement in the accident while traveling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing No.AP-22-F- 3221 considering the income of the deceased-N.Sanjeevkumar Reddy notionally at RS.15,000/- per month and selecting the multiplier relevant to the age of the mother provided in the II schedule to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act granted compensation of Rs.19,65,000/- as against the claim of Rs.20 lakhs. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant insurance company filed the present appeal. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is as to the liability of the insurance company on the ground that the deceased- N.Sanjeevkumar Reddy who was traveling as a pillion rider on the vehicle involved in the accident, since the deceased was traveling as pillion rider, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and also as to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is excessive. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As regards the liability of the insurance company, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company fairly conceded that the policy being a package policy which is evident from Ex.B-1, the risk of the pillion rider is also covered and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the said vehicle and accordingly liable to pay compensation. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents on B. RAMULAMMA v. VENKATESH BUS UNION, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER[1] where the Division Bench of this Court dealing with compensation in respect of death of a student of engineering considered his income as Rs.12,000/- per month. In the instant case also the income of the deceased-N.Sanjeevkumar Reddy can be considered at Rs.12,000/- per month since he is unmarried half of the monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenditure. If so deducted, it comes to Rs.6,000/- per month and his contribution to the family would be Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- per annum. The mother was aged 37 years as on the date of the death of deceased and since the deceased is unmarried, the multiplier relevant to the age of the mother has to be selected for the purpose of computing compensation. As per the decision in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2] the relevant multiplier is 15 and if the said amount is capitalized with 15, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.72,000/- x 15 = Rs.10,80,000/-. This apart, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,90,000/-. The compensation amount shall bear interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date f the petition till the date of realization. In the result, with the above modification in the award passed by the Tribunal below, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 20.10.2010. ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.411 of 2007 Date: 20-10-2010 [1] 2009(6) ALD 684 (DB) [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121