IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1889 of 2003 Between: Linguberi Tulasamma and another .. Appellants AND Avathar Singh and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 12-08-1994 in O.P.No.334 of 1992 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Srikakulam. Lingubheri Suryanarayana working as Forest Guard at the age of 30 years with a monthly salary of Rs.1800/- contributed entirely to the family died in a motor accident on 4-7-1990. When Suryanarayana was going on his moped, lorry No.AMN-696, driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, came in high speed being driven rashly and negligently in the opposite direction and dashed against the moped. The lorry ran over Suryanarayana, who fell down and the moped was completely damaged. The deceased Suryanarayana left behind his wife-1st claimant and a minor son-2nd claimant, who claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from all the three respondents jointly and severally. The insurer alone contested the claim, while the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the insurer contended that the lorry driver had no valid driving licence, the deceased also contributed to the accident with his negligence and the other claims of the claimants are not true. The claim was stated to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the death of Suryanarayana in the accident, the rashness and negligence in driving the lorry and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The Tribunal examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 during the course of enquiry. It rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the probabilities arising out of Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2- Post Mortem certificate, Ex.A.3-Charge sheet and Ex.A.4- Calender and judgment in C.C.No.50 of 1991. The conviction of the driver of the lorry for the offence, which had become final, was held to have proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, more so, in the absence of any contrary evidence. The Tribunal took the annual contribution by the deceased to the claimants at Rs.12,000/- on the strength of the monthly salary of more than Rs.1800/-. It applied a multiplier of 20 and assessed the loss of contribution at Rs.2,40,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the same towards natural risk of life and directed awarding a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. to be shared at Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively by the wife and minor son. The claimants challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the entire compensation could have been awarded considering that the deceased was drawing Rs.1886/- per month as certified by Ex.A.7 and nothing was awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of expectation of life, mental agony and other heads of damages. The deduction of 1/4th towards natural risk of life is unconventional and hence, the appeal. The driver and owner of the lorry remained unrepresented before this Court also and heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the insurer-3rd respondent. The finding of the Tribunal about the lorry driver being responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by any party and the 1st respondent being the lorry driver at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent owning it and the 3rd respondent insuring it are not in dispute. All the three respondents, therefore, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the wife and minor son of Suryanarayana, who died in the accident, justly and adequately. That Suryanarayana was working as Forest Guard at the time of his death is not in dispute and Ex.A.7 is his salary certificate showing that his monthly salary was Rs.1886/-. The age of the deceased was stated to be 30 years by the time of his death and the 1st claimant-PW.1 stated that she was paid death- cum-retirement benefits of her husband indicating that Suryanarayana was occupying a permanent Government job. The principles governing grant of compensation are laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and in respect of a person aged 30 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 17. The assessment of income was also directed to include appropriate addition for future prospects and where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, the addition should be 50%. If so, Suryanarayana must be presumed to be capable of earning Rs.2700/- per month. Out of the same, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd as the dependents were only two and the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1800/- per month. On application of multiplier 17 to an annual income of Rs.21,600/-, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,67,200/-. In addition to the same, the claimants would also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and 1st claimant will also be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total entitlement of the claimants should have, thus, come to Rs.3,87,000/-, but the claim before the Tribunal and before this Court also is only for a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and under the circumstances, the balance compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- should be granted herein by way of enhancement. In view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion, it can be restricted to 6% p.a. and proportionate costs also, of course, shall follow suit. In the result, the impugned award dated 12-08-1994 in O.P.No.334 of 1992 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-03-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298