IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.3538 of 2005 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda District .. Appellant AND Kondiparthy Krishnamurthy and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.759 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda, dated 26-09-2005. Kondiparthy Venkata Chary and N. Hariprasad were returning from Nandipahad on 02-03-2004 at about 9.30 P.M. and on the State Highway, Venkata Chary applied sudden brakes to his scooter observing a Passion motor cycle coming in opposite direction. Lorry No.ADT 7898 coming behind and driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed the scooter and motor cycle also. Venkata Chary fell down and the lorry tyre ran over his head resulting in his instant death. Crime No.32 of 2004 was registered by Miryalaguda rural police against the lorry driver and Venkata Chary, aged about 25 years, was unmarried and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a scooter mechanic. The entire income was contributed by him to his family and hence, the parents sought for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer, who obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in I.A. No.443 of 2005, denied all the claims of the claimants and contended that the insurer was not informed about the accident by the owner and the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the contributory negligence of the drivers of the scooter and motor cycle. The owners and insurers of the scooter and motor cycle are also necessary parties and hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eye witness P.W.2, the pillion rider on the scooter, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 charge sheet and Ex.A.4 inquest report. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence probablised that out of confusion on seeing the opposite vehicle, the deceased applied sudden brakes and his scooter was hit from behind by the offending lorry resulting in the death of the son of the claimants. The Tribunal in assessing the compensation, referred to Ex.A.6 insurance policy probablising the liability of both the respondents as owner and insurer of the lorry in question. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased to be about Rs.1,800/- taking the minimum wages of a labourer at Rs.1,500/- per month as the basis. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 25 years as mentioned in Ex.A.3 post- mortem report, applied multiplier of 18 to the annual income of Rs.21,600/- and deducted one-third of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased leaving a balance of Rs.2,59,200/-. The Tribunal considered the deceased to have contributed to the accident by applying sudden brakes by 25% and deducted one-fourth of the compensation from out of the amount assessed. The Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.500/- each towards transport and damage to clothing and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. It did not award any other compensation under any other heads. On the total compensation of Rs.1,97,400/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and gave further directions about apportionment and disbursement. The insurer filed the present appeal contending that the involvement of the vehicle was wrongly concluded and the Tribunal made a wrong assessment and applied a wrong multiplier and hence, it desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Smt. P.S. Manjula Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs. The owner of the lorry/3rd respondent remained unrepresented before this Court. Though a feeble attempt was made in the grounds of appeal to contend that the offending lorry was not involved in the accident, there was absolutely no evidence on behalf of the owner or the insurer of the lorry before the Tribunal to differ from the conclusions arrived at on the probabilities deduced from the evidence of the eye witness, P.W.2, corroborated by the earliest version in Ex.A.1 found to be true by the independent statutory investigating agency in Ex.A.2 charge-sheet and by independent mediators in Ex.A.4 inquest report. There was absolutely no confusion or ambiguity about the identity of the lorry which hit the scooter of the deceased from behind on the deceased applying sudden brakes. The rashness and negligence in driving the lorry notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the deceased himself by applying sudden brakes, cannot be a matter of doubt under the circumstances. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent to the claim and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent to the claim stood proved by Ex.A.6 copy of insurance policy and hence, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to compensate the parents of the deceased is not open to any re-appreciation. The only question that remains is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the parents are entitled. Though the parents have not preferred any cross appeal or cross-objections, the very request of the appellant/insurer is obviously for reassessment of the compensation on accepted principles about estimating the income of the deceased and the multiplier to be adopted. If that was so, the compensation awarded is, in fact, liable to be re-assessed in terms of accepted principles. The statutory minimum wages payable to a motor mechanic at about the relevant time would not have been less than Rs.2,600/- per month, as the minimum wages payable to a lorry cleaner at the relevant time were more than Rs.2,400/- per month. If so, if Rs.2,600/- have to be taken as the probable monthly income which the deceased would have been earning as a scooter mechanic, the compensation should be assessed on half of such income, as the deceased died a bachelor and the claimants are his parents in the light of the principles laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. On such percentage of the income which should be treated as loss of dependency, the appropriate multiplier to be applied should be with reference to the age of the mother who was stated to be 45 years old and the multiplier applicable according to the same precedent would be 14. If so, the total loss of dependency to the parents would come to Rs.2,18,400/-. The Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence of the deceased to be amounting to about one-fourth of the compensation and if so, the balance payable under this head would be Rs.1,63,800/-. In addition to the same, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate as held in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) and the parents should also be considered entitled to loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/- in almost equal terms as loss of consortium. If so, the total compensation payable would come to Rs.1,83,800/- as against Rs.1,97,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Reducing the compensation awarded by about Rs.14,000/- will be awarding just and adequate compensation, as per the accepted principles, to the parents of the claimant. The interest awarded at 7.5 per cent per annum by the Tribunal was not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing rates of interest. Therefore, the impugned award has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award dated 26-09-2005 in O.P. No.759 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda is modified by reducing the compensation by Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only) but otherwise confirming the award in all other respects. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-09-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298