IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.4376 of 2008 Dated:21-11-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. ….Appellant. And Smt.T.Suvarna and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.4376 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.2894 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 31.03.2008. The respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased Satyanarayana have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. According to them, the deceased Satyanarayana was a business man –cum-car driver, aged 28 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. On 27.06.2005 when the deceased was going on his Hero-Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP 29A 1716 from Kothur to Rangapur at about 11.30 P.M., he reached J.P.Darga road opposite to Vinayaka Steel Factory, the driver of the Tanker bearing No.ATA 6516 stopped the lorry in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and parking lights, as a result of which, the deceased hit the tanker from the backside and sustained injuries and died on the spot. The owner of the Tanker remained exparte. The insurance company has filed the counter denying the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place, age and income of the deceased and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tanker and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place on 27.06.2005 at about 23.20 hours, due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker bearing No.ATA 6516 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to that amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 copy of the insurance policy was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the tanker in parking the same in the middle of the road without parking lights and without taking necessary precautions. The said finding of the Tribunal was not questioned in the appeal. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal while deciding the issue No.2 by taking into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by applying multiplier ‘16’, awarded a sum of Rs.11,52,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,61,500/-. The standing counsel for the insurance company has questioned the said award of compensation by pleading that there is no material on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is owner of the van and Ex.A.6 was not proved by examining the employer. The claimants’ counsel has pleaded that the deceased was owner- cum-driver of the van and he also worked in Venkateshwara Hatcheries and earned Rs.1,64,873/- during April, 2004 to February, 2005. Thus, the lower Court has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and justified the award passed by the Tribunal. According to P.W.1, the deceased is aged 28 years and he is a owner-cum-driver of a van and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. She has got marked Ex.A.6 i.e. Form No.16, Ex.A.7, pan card of the deceased and Ex.A.8 Driving license of the deceased. The Tribunal has observed that even though the P.W.3 was examined to prove the ownership of the van, but no documents were produced to establish the ownership of the van, and refused to accept that the deceased was the owner of the van. The Tribunal has also observed that Ex.A.6, Form No.16 was not proved by examining the competent person, who has issued the same. Thus, only taken into consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. There is no dispute that the deceased was driver of the van and as per Ex.A.6 – Form No.16 he has paid income tax of Rs.3,324/- for the income received from Venkateshwara Hatcheries. Ex.A.7 also shows that the deceased having a pan card. As per Ex.A.7, the deceased was income tax assessee and he is holding valid driving license Ex.A.8 to drive the vehicle. Since the deceased being the driver and also worked in Venkateshwara Hatcheries for some time, he would have earned minimum an amount of Rs.300/- per day, which comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.11,52,000/- and also awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the said compensation and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said award of the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:21-11-2011 Ksp