IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2494 of 2003 Between: Gubbala Satyanarayana and another .. Appellants AND Porapu Laxmana Rao and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in MOP.No.789 of 1998, dated 1-11-2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram. The factual background for the appeal is that Gubbala Srinivasarao, along with two others, was going on scooter AEV- 2733 on 19-2-1998 and near Ramabhadrapuram, lorry No.AP35-T- 1080 came in high speed being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter. All the persons on the scooter died and the parents of Sreenivasa Rao claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- stating that the deceased was working in an electronic shop for a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. The driver and owner of the lorry as respondents 1 and 2 contested the claim denying any rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and attributing the rashness and negligence in driving to the scooter driver. The 3rd respondent- insurer also similarly defended the claim and further contended that the insurance policy did not tally with the name of the owner and number of the lorry and it expired on 23-7-1997. All the respondents contended that the claim is excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award holding the 1st respondent to be rash and negligent in driving and causing the accident, accepting the evidence of eye-witness-PW.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.3-M.V.I. report and Ex.A.4- charge sheet. The Tribunal also found from Ex.B.1 that there was a valid insurance coverage for the accident lorry. Any person connected with the scooter was considered to be not a necessary party and the respondents 1 to 3 were concluded to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal considered the parents to be not totally dependent on the deceased in view of PW.1 earning something from tailoring and in the absence of any documentary evidence about the qualification or employment or salary of the deceased, the Tribunal considered the deceased as an unskilled labourer possibly earning Rs.40/- per day for 25 days in a month. 50% of the assessed income of Rs.1,000/- was taken as the dependency of the parents on the unmarried son. The age of the parents was assessed as about 45 years and a multiplier of 10.45 was applied to arrive at the loss of dependency at Rs.62,700/-. While granting non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal granted interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs on the total compensation of Rs.77,700/-. The claimants are aggrieved with the income of the deceased being not taken as Rs.2,000/- as a mechanic under one Satyanarayana as claimed and they faulted the Tribunal for not examining the employer of the deceased, and hence, desired that the entire compensation be awarded as claimed. Sri B. Gajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer are heard and none appeared for respondents 1 and 2 before this Court. The Tribunal found the 1st respondent to be responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the policy of insurance for the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent to be subsisting with the 3rd respondent as the insurer and all the respondents 1 to 3 to be jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the parents of the deceased. These findings of fact are not in dispute and similarly, the conclusion of the Tribunal about the age of the petitioners/parents to be about 45 years is also not in dispute. The absence of any documentary evidence to prove the qualification or employment or salary of the deceased is evident and the Tribunal cannot be considered to be unjustified in assessing his income as an unskilled labourer for 25 days in a month. On that basis, making 50% deduction of the assessed income and counting only the remaining 50% as the loss of dependency for the parents is in tune with Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. But, the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 45 years is 14 and not 10.45 according to that decision. Consequently, the compensation for loss of dependency should have been Rs.84,000/-. The claimants can also be considered to be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- in total towards loss of love and affection and all other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. If so, the just and adequate compensation should have been Rs.1,04,000/-. The enhancement of compensation at Rs.26,300/- should also carry with it interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced portion of the compensation in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, while proportionate costs shall follow suit. Therefore, the award dated 1-11-2000 in MOP.No.789 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.26,300/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298