THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1216 of 2006 and 1236 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since these two appeals arise out of the same order in O.P.No.620 0f 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short “the Tribunal”), the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1216 of 2006 are the claimants and the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1236 of 2007 is the National Insurance Company Limited-2nd respondent in O.P.No.620 of 2004. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending bus while the 3rd respondent is the A.P.S.R.T.C. in O.P.No.620 of 2004. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased is their unmarried son aged about 24 years and was a Graduate in Computers and Commerce and also a post-graduate in Commerce. He was working as a Sales Executive in Nokia at Sangareddy on a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. On 14-07-2004, while the deceased was going from Hyderabad to Sangareddy, on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-01/F-8586 along with one Vinay Agarwal as pillion rider, and when they reached in front of Inspection Bungalow, Patancheru on National Highway No.9, a bus bearing Registration No.AP- 28/V-6395 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Police Patancheru registered a case in Cr.No.270 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said bus. Therefore, they filed the said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 and A-22. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition partly awarding compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1216 of 2006 seeking enhancement of the compensation contending that the Tribunal had erroneously taken the multiplier “11” instead of taking “15”. Aggrieved by the very same order, the insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1236 of 2007 contending that admittedly the offending vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent in the said O.P., who is the owner of the vehicle. The accident occurred on 14-07-2004 when it was hired to APSRTC. But, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle was not allowed to hire and, therefore, having realized the mistake, the owner of the said vehicle obtained permission to hire the vehicle to APSRTC only on 20-12-2004 under IMT No.44. In support of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, he relied on the judgment of this Court in BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JAVVAJI BHASKAR RAO[1] and contended that the APSRTC and the owner of the said vehicle alone are liable to pay compensation, but not the insurance company. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the owner, insurance company as well as the APSRTC are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in P.SATYANARAYANA Vs. KERASI MANEVVA AND OTHERS[2], wherein it was held as follows:- “Even if the bus is given on hire to APSRTC, the insurance policy obtained by the owner of the bus would be valid and the insurer is liable to pay the compensation payable to third party risks in cases where the bus got involved in accidents.” It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent and hired to the 3rd respondent. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle hired the vehicle to APSRTC contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, and having realized the mistake, the 1st respondent obtained permission for hiring the vehicle to APSRTC only on 20-12-2004 under IMT No.44, whereas the accident was occurred on 14-07-2004 i.e., much prior to granting permission for hiring the said vehicle, is concerned, a perusal of Ex.B-3-policy goes to show that no such endorsement is found on it. As a matter of fact, Ex.B-3 covers the risk for the period from 21-05-2004 to 20-05-2005. Further, as per the judgment of this Court in P.SATYANARAYANA’s case (2 supra), it cannot be said that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, as there is a valid policy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1236 of 2007 is dismissed. However, if the insurance company is able to establish that no such policy was obtained as on the date of the accident, it is open for the insurance company to take appropriate legal course available to it. There shall be no order as to costs. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident and the mother of the deceased was aged 42 years. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as per Salary Certificate-Ex.A- 19, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.28,200/-. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the Supreme Court in BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION[3] held that even the claim made under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, for the age of the claimant, who was aged 45 years, the multiplier has to be taken is “15”. In the instant case, the 2nd claimant, who is mother of the deceased, is aged 42 years. Therefore, following the said judgment (3 supra), the multiplier “15” has to be taken into consideration instead of “11”. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,23,000/- (Rs.28,200/- X 15). Apart from that, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,38,000/-. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1216 of 2006 is allowed in part enhancing compensation from Rs.3,25,000/- to Rs.4,28,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-07-2010 Prv [1] 2009 (3) ALD 53 [2] 2009 (1) ALD 160 [3] 2008 (4) ALD 1 (SC)