HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A. No.3822 OF 2003 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.1857 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the common order dated 24-02-2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P. Nos.994 of 2000 and 574 of 2000, respectively, which are filed by the parents and wife of the deceased respectively. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of the common order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case of the claimants is that on 02-10-1999, while the deceased Mekala Chinna Gangadhar was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP9-H-6879 from Kamareddy towards Machareddy, near Srinivas Moulding Workshop, at about 5-30 PM, TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.AP25– C -3682, which was coming in the opposite direction on the wrong side, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and from there while he was being shifted to Apollo Hopsital, Hyderabad, he died on the way. The deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of accident, owned a tractor and was doing brick business and also cultivation and used to earn Rs.22,000/- per month. Hence, parents of the deceased filed O.P. No.994 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and wife of the deceased filed O.P. No.574 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. In both the O.Ps., respondent No.1, who is driver of the Suzuki motorcycle, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – Insurance Company alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP25-C- 3682 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what just amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove their case, father and wife of the deceased got themselves examined as PWs.1 and 2 and an eyewitness as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.B-1 to B-3 documents were marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, which is claimed by the claimants i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- by the parents and Rs.5,00,000/- by the wife of the deceased. Aggrieved of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive, these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company. 8. Heard Smt. A. Malathi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in both the appeals, and Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in both the appeals, and perused the material on record. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing these appeals ? 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company – appellant contends that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well for occurrence of the accident and the same is revealed from Ex.B-3, copy of the sketch of the scene of offence. 11. In support of the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, no witness is examined to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well and even rider of the Suzuki motorcycle, which caused the accident, was also not examined to speak about the same. In the absence of any evidence, just on the basis of Ex.B-3, copy of the sketch of the scene of offence, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as well. 12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very high since the deceased had no income as claimed by the claimants. She contends that admittedly, family of the deceased owned Acs.3-00 of land standing on the name of the father of the deceased on which there is no possibility of any substantial income and that there is no material in support of the contention that the deceased was doing bricks business and was earning substantial income on that also. 13. Though there is no material in support of the claimants’ contention that deceased was doing cultivation and brick business and earning substantial income, fact remains that deceased owned a tractor. Ex.A-7, a copy of the R.C. book of the tractor, shows that he owned a tractor. Further, he also owned a motorcycle, on which he was proceeding at the time of accident. In case, he was not having any reasonable income, perhaps, there was no possibility of the deceased maintaining a tractor and a motorcycle. 14. According to the claimants, deceased was earning substantial income by hiring the tractor for the purpose of cultivation etc., and he was earning income from the brick business as well. 15. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, a person owning a tractor as well as motorcycle can be reasonably expected to be earning at least Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- a month, though the claim of the claimants is much more than that. Thus, even accepting that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- a month and out of which, if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to his family. 16. Coming to the age of the deceased, there is no authentic evidence on record on that aspect. According to the claimants, deceased was 24 years old as on the date of accident but the postmortem report revealed that he was 27 years and the same was taken by the Tribunal for computing just compensation. Thus, there is nothing wrong in taking multiplier 18, which is appropriate for the age group of the deceased, for computing just compensation towards loss of dependency. 17. Accordingly, if the annual contribution of the deceased to his family is multiplied with multiplier 18 i.e. Rs.48,000/- x 18, it comes to Rs.8,64,00/- towards loss of dependency, which cannot be said to be on higher side in any manner for the dependants of a person owning a tractor and motorcycle. Another amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, pain and suffering, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc., though on higher side, as the age and income of the deceased are taken approximately, total compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable. In view of the same, there are no grounds for interfering with the finding of the Tribunal. However, the entire compensation shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum only instead of 9%, from the date of petition. 18. Except reducing the rate of interest, the remaining part of the judgment of the Tribunal is confirmed, thus, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 22, 2010. PV