HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2002 of 2001 Date:21.12.2010 Between: P. Mahalakshmi and 3 others. ….Appellants. And: M/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Krishna District and 2 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2002 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2001 passed in O.P.No.1188 of 1996 on the file of the II Member Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed, the O.P. in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,68,104/- with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The appellants are the claimants in O.P. No.1188 of 1996. They filed the O.P. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- for the death of P. Gopala Krishna in a motor accident occurred on 09.01.1996. Claimant No.1 is widow and the claimant No. 2 is daughter and the claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of P. Gopala Krishna. He was a Civil Engineering Graduate with B.E Degree from Kakatiya University, Warangal. He started his own business of consultancy and later joined in a construction company by name M/s. Pragathi Constructions. He was also undertaking works in South Central Railway at Peddapally. On 8.1.1996 when he was returning in his car from Shambalpur, a lorry bearing No.AP 16T 4124 came in opposite direction, driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the car. As a result he sustained severe injuries, for which he succumbed while undergoing treatment in Primary Health Centre at Balugaon in Khurda Road District in Orissa State. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited being the insurer and Lingamaneni Durga Prsada Rao being the owner and Brahma Rao being the driver of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation. The owner and driver remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter disputing the claim of the claimants, rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry and quantum of amount of compensation claimed by the claimants. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “ 1. Whether the accident involving the Maruthi Car No.AP 31 E- 8988 and lorry bearing No.AP 16 T – 4124, resulting in the death of Gopala Krishna, was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by respondent No.3? 2. Whether the said accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Maruthi Car in which the deceased was traveling? 3. Whether the lorry in question was insured with R-1 company at the relevant time? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 5. To what reliefs:” On behalf of the claimants, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked 26 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-26 and on behalf of the insurer, no ocular evidence was adduced, but two documents were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. The learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 4124 and that the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,68,104/- as compensation and the said compensation amount is to be paid by the owner, driver and insurer jointly and severely by order dated 7.3.2001. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this C.M.A. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-insurer. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants submits that the quantum of amount of compensation arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not fair and reasonable and therefore, the same is required to be enhanced considerably. He further submits that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate and he was having lot of future prospects and the said future prospects were required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the loss of dependency of the claimants. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-insurer supported the order impugned in the appeal. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this appeal; whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is fair and reasonable? There is no dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 4124. The first respondent being the insurer and the 2nd respondent being the owner and 3rd respondent being the driver are liable to pay the compensation. P.W.1 is the claimant No.1 and she is the widow of the deceased. She testifies that the deceased was earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and he had lot of future and thereby his earnings were likely to be enhanced had he been alive. As could be seen from the material brought on record, the claimants produced Ex.A- 16 xerox copy of the income tax returns of the assessment for the year 1993-94. Indeed the learned Tribunal referred the income tax returns and observed as hereunder: “Therefore for ascertaining the annual income of the deceased in my considered opinion an average of all the incomes of the deceased under Ex.A-25, A-26 and Ex.B-1 shall be taken into consideration. If it is worked out Rs.44,800/- under Ex.A-25, Rs.42,490/- under Ex.A-26 and Rs.9,769/- under Ex.B-1 = Rs.97,059/- and average of it is Rs.32,353/-. So, I assess the above income as the annual income of the deceased by the time of his death.” The way in which the learned Tribunal has arrived the annual income, in our considered view, cannot be said to be correct. The latest income tax returns indicate the annual income of the deceased at Rs.44,800/-. Therefore, it can be safely taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.45,000/-. If 1/3rd of his income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, his contribution to the family per annum can be taken at Rs.30,000/-. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 16.5 as per a decision rendered in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Trasnport Corporation[1] Thus, the total loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs.30,000/- X 16.5 = Rs.4,80,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to conventional sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant i.e., wife and also Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.4,97,000/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,68,104/- to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit. The compensation shall be shared among the claimants as follows: Claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- Claimant No.2 is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- Claimant No.3 is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- Claimant No.4 is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- Out of the compensation amount payable to the claimant No.1, she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be invested in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for three years. The compensation amount payable to the 2nd petitioner claimant shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised bank till she attains majority. The claimant No.1 being her guardian is entitled to withdraw the amount accrued on the Fixed Deposit. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:21.12.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2002 of 2001 Date:21.12.2010 Gk. [1] 2009 (6) SCC 121