IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA No.2066 of 2007 Between: Indramma & others. … Appellants And N. Motilal & others … Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri P. Krishna Reddy for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma for Smt. Pushpinder Kaur Counsel for respondent No.3: Ms. M. Punyavathi for Sri Bujji Babu Davuluri This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA No.2066 of 2007 ORDER:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P.No.1216 of 2001 against award dated 30.09.2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). The husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 died in a road accident involving respondent No.1, who has hit the deceased while driving a Scooter. The appellants filed the above O.P. claiming compensation from the Scooterist respondent No.1 and also respondent No.2 insurance company. The Tribunal has found that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased, who was a daily wage labourer, at Rs.75/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs.18,000/- per annum was arrived at as the deceased’s contribution to the family. On the basis of the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was taken as 41 years and adopted the multiplier of 15. Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed compensation at Rs.2,88,000/- under various heads. The Tribunal, however, held that as respondent No.1 was not holding driving licence to ride Scooter, it has absolved respondent No.2 insurance company from the liability of payment of compensation. At the hearing, Sri Krishna Reddy, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal should have taken higher income in calculating the compensation. He also submitted that as respondent No.1 had licence for driving auto rickshaw, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle, he is deemed to be proficient in driving Scooter also and there was no justification to hold that he was not competent to drive Scooter and thereby excluding respondent No.2 from the liability to pay the compensation. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel, as noted above, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.75/- per day. As the deceased was only a daily wage labourer, I do not find anything wrong in adopting the said figure as the daily income of the deceased. In the absence of any evidence produced by the claimants in this regard, the Tribunal has not committed any error in presuming that the deceased would have been earning Rs.75/- per day. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel, a perusal of Ex.A9 driving licence of respondent No.1 shows that he holds licence to drive auto rickshaw, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. Under this licence, respondent No.1 is not authorized to drive Scooter. Even if Scooter is a lighter vehicle than the goods and passenger vehicles, still a person is required to hold a licence to drive the light motor vehicles such as Scooter. As admittedly respondent No.1 did not hold the light motor vehicle licence, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the liability of respondent No.2 in payment of compensation. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the award of the Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.02.2010 ES