THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.1551 of 2010 Date:31.01.2011 Between: Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Manager, 2nd Floor, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ……….. Appellant. And N.Ganesh and others. ……. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.1551 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The arguments have been advanced in MACMAMP No.21 of 2011 i.e the vacate stay petition praying to vacate the interim stay orders passed by this Court on 28.9.2010 in MACMAMP No.4024 of 2010. Since both the learned counsel have advanced elaborate arguments, I consider just and reasonable to dispose of the main appeal itself. 2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 31.03.2010 passed in O.P.No.2033 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Challenging the said award, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal. The 4th respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were claimants before the Tribunal. The parties will be referred as they are shown before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Since the 3rd claimant is the mother of the deceased, she alone is the surviving legal representative of the deceased and the other claimants died, and she will be referred as claimant hereinafter. The deceased is the daughter of the claimant. Her age was shown as 32 years. According to the claimant, she was working as Tailor and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. On 24.8.2007, at about 13.00 hours, while the deceased was traveling along with her husband on scooter bearing No.AP-11/D- 7512 from Yacharam towards Polkampally side and when they reached opposite Asian Dhaba on Sagar Highway road, one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 7U 9745 came from their behind in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against their scooter. As a result of which, the claimant and her husband fell down and sustained injuries as the lorry ran over both of them and the deceased died on the spot. Her husband sustained grievous injury and his both legs were amputated. The Police of Ibrahimpatnam registered a case in Crime No.185 of 2007. Originally, the claim was made by the husband of the deceased, but after his death, the patents of the deceased were impleaded as legal heirs as per the orders passed in I.A.No.2986 of 2008, dated 22.9.2008 and unfortunately, during the pendency of the proceedings, the father of the deceased also died and the sole claimant who is the mother of the deceased alone is alive and has been claiming compensation. 3. One of the grounds taken by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the driver of the vehicle was having driving licence and the same thing has been referred by the Motor Vehicles Inspector in his report. The claimant has also filed a copy of the driving licence of the driver and also filed additional material papers along with MACMAMP No.21 of 2011. Thus, the learned counsel for the claimants’ main submission is that since the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence and the same was referred by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and there are no grounds in the appeal and the same may be dismissed. 5. Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company has not only taken the ground that the driver was not having driving licence but the other grounds taken by the Insurance Company are that the Tribunal had incorrectly taken the multiplier ‘16’ which is applicable to the deceased and the Tribunal ought to have multiplied the multiplier ‘11’ i.e the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased. It is also his submission that since the mother is the sole surviving claimant and no other legal heirs to the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted half of the income from the income taken towards his personal expenses. 6. Thus, the only points that arise for consideration are (1) whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence or not as on the date of the accident and (2) whether the Tribunal was justified in taking ‘16’ multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and that the 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company got issued a notice to the 1st respondent for furnishing particulars of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle and as the owner of the vehicle did not furnish those particulars, the Insurance Company argued that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is not in dispute that the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report was marked as Ex.A5 by the Tribunal. Now, the learned counsel for the claimant has furnished a copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report. As seen from the contents of Column No.16 of the Motor Vehicles Report, dated 1.9.2007, the Motor Vehicles Inspector has specifically given the name and address of the driver as Md.Ghouse S/o.Moulana, resident of H.No.4-27, Vemulapalli, Nalgonda and the driving licence particulars of DLRAP02412272006 valid up to 20.7.2009. 8. Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 24.8.2007. Thus, prima facie, it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The parties and their counsel appearing before the lower Court ought to have verified the contents of the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report-Ex.A5. Unfortunately, the Tribunal also failed to consider the contents of the M.V.I Report, which clearly mentioned the name and address of the driver and also the driving licence number and its validity period. 9. Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the validity and the genuineness of the driving licence is to be verified. The Insurance Company ought to have verified the contents of the M.V.I Report before the lower Court and ought to have obtained the copies from the licensing authority and ought to have verified the particulars as shown in Column No.16 of Ex.A5. 10. The claimants have proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence as on the date of the accident and now the burden shifts on the Insurance Company, and therefore, I consider just and reasonable to hold that the claimants have proved that the driver was having driving licence and this is not the stage to remand the matter to the lower Court for considering whether the contents of M.V.I Report are genuine or not or whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence or not which steps the parties ought have taken before the Tribunal itself. 11. Coming to the other points raised by Sri T.Mahender Rao, it is clear that the 3rd claimant is the mother of the deceased and though in her claim petition she stated her age is 47 years, but in her cross-examination she had admitted that her elder daughter is aged about 35 years. Having regard to the age of the elder daughter of the claimant, it is clear that her age must be above 50 years, and I hold that it is just and reasonable to take her age and according to Sri T. Mahender Rao, in the charge sheet, the age of the 3rd claimant is shown as 52 years. 12. In the above circumstances, the age of the 3rd claimant is taken as above 50 years and it is settled law that the multiplier ‘11’ is applicable to the persons, who are aged above 50 years. As far as the deduction of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased are concerned, admittedly, the claimant is only a sole surviving legal heir claiming compensation. Though, the word bachelor is used in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] but having regard to the principle laid down in that case, considering the facts of this case that except the claimant, there are no other surviving legal heirs of the deceased, and in the above circumstances, it appears that the deceased would have spent at least 50% towards her personal expenses and deduction of 50% from her income appears to be just and reasonable. In view of the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.3,000/- and I am not inclined to disturb the same. So, half of the income comes to Rs.1,500/- and annual loss of earning to Rs.1,500 x 12 = Rs.18,000/- multiplied with ‘11’, the total loss of income comes to Rs.1,98,000/- and the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,08,000/-. The Tribunal awarded 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit into the Court with proportionate costs and I am not inclined to disturb the same. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the award as follows: The claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit into the Court. Having regard to the age of the claimant, she is permitted to withdraw half of the amount with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of three years and she is permitted to withdraw accrued interest on such amount. Appeal stands allowed accordingly. _____________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Date:31.01.2011 Note:Furnish CC within two weeks. mrb [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121