THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.10 OF 2010 DATED: 13-08-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 03-08-2009, in O.P.No.337 OF 2007 on the file of the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for orders’. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Koppole Venkateswarlu. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and claimant No.3 is the brother of the deceased. According to them, on 29-07-2007, while the deceased along with others was going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 16AK 2488, an auto bearing No.AP 27 W 6590, driven by the 4th respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased, who succumbed while shifting to hospital. It is pleaded that the deceased was an unmarried, aged 24 years and is working as casual labourer in APSEB earning Rs.4000/- per month. The owner of the auto and the insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner-deceased-Koppole Venkateswlu, S/o Ramulu died in motor vehicle accident on 30-07-2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R1 being No.AP-W.6590 Auto? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1, employee of the Insurance company, was examined and Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 27 W 6590 by its driver. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, award was passed with interest @ 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, insurer filed the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the deceased was admittedly unmarried, the Tribunal erred in taking his age into consideration instead of the age of the mother of the deceased while estimating the loss of dependency. He would further submit that in the absence of any evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in taking his income at Rs.4000/- per month. He would further contend that the evidence on record shows that the deceased and two others were riding the motor cycle and the Tribunal erred in ignoring the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and other riders of the motor cycle. 7. It is not disputed that the accident occurred on account of the auto dashing against the motor cycle. Ex.A1-First Information Report in Cr.No.29 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the auto. After due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet-Ex.A4 against the driver of the auto. There is nothing on record to suggest that the rider of the motor cycle was riding the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or that he also contributed to the accident. The appellant-insurer has not adduced any evidence in that regard to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. Simply because three persons were travelling on the motor cycle at the time of the accident, no inference can be drawn to the fact that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. If the rider of the motor cycle violated any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, by allowing three persons to travel on the motor cycle, which is prohibited, it is for the police to take action against him. The said circumstance that three persons were travelling on the motor cycle does not necessarily lead to any inference that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The plea of the appellant-insurer that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the motor cycle riders remained unsubstantiated. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the deceased was admittedly unmarried and he was aged 24 years and was working as a casual labourer in APSEB. Ex.A5 is the SSC certificate; Ex.A6 is the certificate of merit issued by the Prakasam District Secondary School Games and Sports Association; Ex.A7 is the Provisional National Trade certificate; Ex.A8 is Training certificate; Ex.A9 is the copy of Apprentice Training relief report issued by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Operations, A.P.S.P.D.C., Addanki and Ex.A10 is photos of occurrence, all pertaining to the deceased showing that he was duly qualified. No doubt, he was working as a casual labourer and no evidence is placed on record to show that he was earning Rs.4000/- per month. However, having regard to the qualification and the technical training undergone by the deceased, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.4000/- per month taken as the income by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal, however, erred in taking the age of the deceased into consideration and applied the multiplier ‘17’. As admittedly he was unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother into consideration and applied the suitable multiplier. The 2nd claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, was aged 43 years and as per the recent decision of the Apex Court i n SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the suitable multiplier is ‘14’. As per the same decision as the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. When it is so deducted, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- p.a. (Rs.2000/- X 12) Applying the multiplier ‘14’ the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.24,000/- X 14). Claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation payable works out to Rs.3,40,500/- (Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.2500/- + Rs.2000/-) which can be rounded off to Rs.3,41,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th August, 2020 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298