IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.520 of 2003 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Kakinada .. Appellant AND Palsi Gangu Bai and 4 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.169 of 1998, dated 19-11-2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. Palsi Linganna travelling in Jeep bearing No.MH-26/C-4281 died due to the injuries sustained on the jeep being dashed against by the lorry No.AP-5-T-3676 on 20-11-1997 near Bhiknoor village. Linganna aged 55 years was claimed by his wife and three sons- the claimants to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and hence, they sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry, while denying the negligence of its driver, claimed the compensation claimed to be excessive. The insurer of the lorry denied any negligence on the part of the lorry driver and put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and during the enquiry, it examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. It rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the eye- witness account of PW.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2- charge sheet, Ex.A.3-inquest report and Ex.A.4-Post Mortem report and concluded, in the absence of any contrary evidence for the respondents, that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The age of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal as 65 years as per Ex.A.3-inquest report and Ex.A.6-Pattadar Pass book was taken as showing the deceased to be owning Acs7.12 guntas of land. The Tribunal presumed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month and assessed annual the contribution to the wife and sons at Rs.28,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Applying a multiplier of 5, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,40,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. On the total of Rs.1,72,500/-, the Tribunal granted interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. The insurer filed the present appeal, questioning the placing of the responsibility for the accident on the lorry driver, claiming that the accident occurred due to a head on collision between the jeep and the lorry. The insurer also questioned the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased and the dependence of the claimants on the deceased aged 65 years. It contended that funeral expenses could not have been granted and hence, the appellant desired the impugned award to be reversed. Smt. I. Maamuvani, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri K.V. Ratna Rao, learned counsel representing Sri R. Raghunandhan, learned counsel for the 5th respondent are heard. None entered appearance for the respondents-1 to 4- claimants. The points for consideration in this appeal are about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of just compensation. PW.2 was an eye-witness, who was travelling in the same jeep and he was corroborated by Inquest Report-Ex.A.3 containing the views of the independent mediators, the earliest version in Ex.A.1-FIR and the conclusions of the statutory investigating agency in Ex.A.2-Charge sheet. In the absence of any contradictory evidence for the respondents, the conclusion of the Tribunal placing the responsibility for the accident on the lorry driver cannot be faulted. Though the claimants claimed the deceased to be aged 55 years, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased mentioned in the inquest report as the basis for presuming him to be running 65 years by the time of his death and Ex.A.4-Post Mortem report also noted the apparent age of the deceased as 65 years. The assessment of the age by the independent mediators under Ex.A.3-inquest report and by the medical expert in Ex.A.4 rightly formed the basis for the Tribunal for assessing the age. The Pattadar pass book-Ex.A.6 showed the deceased to own Acs.7.12 guntas and the family including his wife and sons lost his supervision and guidance in the agricultural activity even if the land still remains with them. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of the Apex Court, wherein such loss of supervision was calculated at Rs.3,000/- per month. But, it is seen here that instead of applying the correct multiplier for the age of 65 as 7 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], only a multiplier of 5 was adopted by the Tribunal. Even if the claims of the learned counsel for the appellant were to be accepted, still loss of dependency would be much more on application of multiplier of 7 than Rs.1,40,000/- granted by the Tribunal. For the same reason, though Rs.32,500/- were granted towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses by the Tribunal under the impugned award, the same need not be interfered with in spite of being in excess than indicated by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra). Under the circumstances, the impugned award is not susceptible to any interference. The Appeal has to fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298