HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.645 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is filed by the Insurance company against the award dated 29.11.2005 passed in O.P No.1 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the 5th respondent is the owner of the crime lorry in the said O.P. . The facts relating to the case are that on 22.06.2000 at about 8.30 P.M. the deceased, who was working as Compressor Operator in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Addanki, along with his co-employee, was coming on a Kinatick Safari Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.27D 4283 from Vijayawada towards Ongole side and hit the lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 2529, which was parked negligently by its driver on the National High Way No.5 without any parking lights or clear reflectors, as a result of which, the deceased and another sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Consequently, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, laid a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing counter, inter alia, contending that stones were arranged around the lorry indicating the parking of the lorry and that the deceased himself drove the motor cycle negligently and hit on the rear side of the stationed lorry and hence the deceased was responsible for the accident. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Eventually, at the culmination of enquiry, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in parking the vehicle on the road without parking lights and then the Tribunal assessed the compensation and arrived at Rs.10,60,000/- and passed the award accordingly. Assailing the said award, the appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence to show that the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.P.27 U 2529 is responsible for causing the accident in question and hence the Tribunal out not to have fastened the insurance company with any liability. He further submits that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. We have considered the respective contentions of the parties and perused the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal basing on the evidence available on record found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in parking it on the road without parking lights. P.Ws.2 and 4, who are circumstantial witnesses to the accident, stated in their evidence that no guard or any person relating to the lorry was present near the crime lorry and that the crime lorry was parked negligently on the tar road since no signs were displaced showing the stationed lorry. R.W.2, who is the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, has admitted in his evidence that the parking lights of the crime lorry were not functioning at the time of accident. We are of the considered opinion that without parking lights it is very difficult to notice the parking of the vehicle during night time and that leaving the vehicle on the main road without parking lights clearly go to show that the driver of the lorry was negligent in parking the vehicle on the road. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal in causing the culpability on the part of the driver of the lorry in question cannot be interfered with. Coming to the question of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was working as compressor operator in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Addanki, and drawing a total salary of Rs.9,139/- as per Ex.P4 salary certificate, as on the date of his death. Taking into consideration the average income of the deceased, his income can be safely fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.1,20,000/- and from this amount if 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.80,000/-. As the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘13’ and if the same is applied, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,40,000/- (Rs.80,000/- X 13). Apart from the said compensation, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,500/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant-wife and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards obsequies. Considering all these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.10,60,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7 ½% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the owner of the crime lorry and the appellant-Insurance Company. However, since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs.7,00,000/-, the Claims Tribunal directed the claimants to pay the Court fee on the remaining awarded amount of compensation. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the Claims Tribunal is quite legal and justified and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA __________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD 29.08.2011 Gsn