HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3866 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability and also quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.595 of 1999 vide judgment dated 14-03-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the United India Insurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased Satish who died in the accident that occurred on 28-04-1999, are claimants and respondent No.3 is owner of the lorry bearing No.AHT – 7556 involved in the accident and the appellant is insurer of the above lorry. 3. The case of the claimants is that on 28-04-1999 while the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.AP28 – E – 4467 driven by his friend from Santhoshnagar towards Koti, near Hanuman Temple, Saidabad, at 12-40 PM, the lorry bearing No.AHT – 7556 belonging to respondent No.3 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed came and to avoid an accident with an APSRTC Bus, which was coming in the opposite direction, hit the scooter of the deceased, as a result, deceased and his friend, rider of the scooter, fell down on the road along with the scooter and rear wheels of the lorry dragged him and his friend to a distance of 30 feet and on account of that deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.78 of 1999 was registered by the Saidabad Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. The deceased was an unmarried person working as Sales Promoter in JTM Mobile Telephone Services and getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. The owner of the offending lorry involved in the accident remained ex parte. 5. The insurer, insurance company - appellant, of the offending lorry alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants and also its liability for payment of compensation. 6. Based on the pleadings, the point that was considered by the Tribunal is “whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount?” 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking insurance policy of the offending lorry as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- as claimed by the claimants and after deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards his personal expenses (Rs.4,000 x 1/3 = 1,333), which comes to Rs.2,667/- per month and Rs.32,004/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to his family and applying multiplier ‘8.78’ according to the age of the mother of the deceased as 48 years since deceased died unmarried, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,80,995/- towards loss of dependency alone. However, as the compensation claimed by the claimants was only Rs.2,50,000/-, Tribunal awarded the same to the claimants restricting the compensation to that extent against the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Questioning its liability and also the quantum of compensation, insurance company preferred this appeal. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, appellant, is that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month without any authentic evidence on record and further instead of 50%, as the deceased was unmarried, deducted only 1/3rd out of his monthly income towards his personal expenses. 10. As contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the amount out of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, as he was unmarried. However, though there is no authentic evidence, if some amount is added to the monthly income of the deceased towards possibility of enhancement in his future income, the amount of Rs.4,000/- taken by the Tribunal as monthly income of the deceased cannot be said to be on higher side. Thus, out of Rs.4,000/-, on deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, Rs.2,000/- per month can be taken as contribution of the deceased to his family and it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. If the age of the mother of the deceased is taken as 48 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1], the appropriate multiplier for her age group is ‘13’ but not ‘8.78’, which was applied by the Tribunal for computing the compensation. In these circumstances also, claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and in fact they are entitled to more than Rs.3,00,000/-, but as the claim of the claimants is only Rs.2,50,000/-, the same only can be awarded, and therefore, the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are not an indication to the claimants to claim higher compensation in any manner possible by filing any amendment petitions etc., since the age of the mother of the deceased and income of the deceased are taken approximately for computing and awarding compensation to the claimants without there being any authentic material with regard to the same and as it is a case of the deceased being an unmarried person, the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is more appropriate. 11. However, as per the latest legal position, the rate of interest can be reduced from 9% to 6% per annum and the same is accordingly reduced. 12. With the above modification in the rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121