HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.N0. 4258 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2004 passed by the III Additional District Judge cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 630 of 2002 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of Karanam Jagdish in a road accident that occurred on 13.4.2002 at about 5.00 a.m while the deceased, was going in the Van bearing No. AP 31U 6183 in a capacity of Cleaner and when they reached near Tekulapalle Village, due to rash and negligent driving of the said van by its driver, it dashed a stationary vehicle and as a result of which, both cleaner and driver of the van died on the spot. First respondent being owner of the Van bearing No. AP 31U 6183 and the second respondent-Insurance Company being insurer filed their counter affidavits denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van bearing No. AP 31U 6183, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable by the first respondent from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the learned judge ought to have made the Insurance Company liable for the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 31U 6183 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and she stated that the deceased was unmarried and aged 24 years and was working as Cash Collection boy in the Van of the first respondent and getting Rs. 4,500/- per month. Ex. A-8 is the salary certificate issue by the owner of the vehicle showing that he was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the deceased, who was working as a Collection Agent. Hence, the deceased was a workman under Section 2(n) (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 6. I have perused the schedule under Minimum Wages Act and for workers the amount of wages was prescribed as Rs. 4,500/-. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is taken as wages per month. In case of death as per Section 4 (c) (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, 50% of the wages has to be deducted. If deducted 50% of the wages out of 3,000/- the net wages comes to Rs. 1500/- per month and the relevant multiplier for the age of 24 years is 218.47 and if applied, the total amount comes to Rs. 3,27,705/- (1500/- x 218.47 = 3,27,705/-). 7. As seen from the record, Ex. B-1 the insurance policy of the offending van does not cover the risk; therefore, the court below rightly fastened the liability only on the owner of the Van and rightly held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,52,000/- to Rs. 3,27,705/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 30.09.2010 KA