THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 4718 of 2008 and Cross Objections (Sr) No. 53588 of 2008 Common Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 23.08.2006 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 361 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and needs to be reduced, while the claimants preferred cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.08.2003, the deceased namely B. Lokesh Naidu, along with his mother and other relatives, was proceeding in a Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 02D 6633, from Secunderabad to Vijayawada, and at about 9.00 a.m., while the car reached Gunjaluru Bus Stage at Culvert No.154/1 on Hyderabad – Vijayawada Highway, a lorry bearing No. AP 12T 2149, coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their car, as a result of which the deceased and his mother sustained severe multiple injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital, while his mother died on the spot. The respondents-claimants, who are the brothers of the deceased B. Lokesh Naidu, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, from respondent No.4-owner of the offending lorry and the appellant-Insurance Company, with whom the lorry was insured, contending that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 24 years and working as sub-contractor/material supplier to various railway contractors and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, and due to the sudden death of the deceased, they have been put to mental agony and financial loss. Respondent No.4-owner of the offending lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the appellant filed counter denying the allegations made by the respondents-claimants in the claim petition and resisted the claim of the respondents-claimants. Before the Tribunal, the respondents-claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked documents Exs. A1 to A21, while the appellant-Insurance company examined none, but marked Ex.B1. The Tribunal, having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, basing on Exs. A4, A14 and A15, found that the deceased was doing sub- contract works and business of material supply to various railway contractors, and felt that his monthly income can be safely assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal deducted one-third of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, and applying multiplier 16, it arrived the compensation payable by respondent No.4- owner of the vehicle and the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally to the respondents-claimants at Rs.12,80,000/-, along with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- merely based on guess work. He submitted that since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income should be deducted towards personal expenses. He further submitted that as the deceased was unmarried and his parents are no more and having regard to the age of the eldest brother of the deceased, who is aged 38 years, the relevant multiplier applicable is 15, but the Tribunal committed an error in taking the multiplier 16. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dindigal v. Sujatharani[1], the cross-objections filed by the respondents-claimants are not maintainable, and prayed that the cross-objections be rejected and the compensation payable to the respondents-claimants be reduced. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the order under appeal and fairly admitted that the cross-objections, in view of the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dindigal v. Sujatharani, are not maintainable. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the award. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- merely based on guess work cannot be accepted. As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants and the award of the Tribunal, the deceased was a sub-contractor, and as is evident from Ex. A4-income certificate and Exs. A14 and A15-purchase orders, he was engaged in supplying material to various Railway Contractors. Though the respondents- claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but having regard to the nature of sub-contract being executed by the deceased, which is of supplying material to the Railway Contractors, as is evident from the purchase orders, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, which cannot be found fault with and we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted by this Court with the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. The deceased, admittedly, is a bachelor. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], if the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. On such deduction, his actual contribution to the family would come to (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.60,000/-) Rs.60,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried and has no surviving parents, the age of the eldest brother of the deceased, who is aged 38 years, can be taken as the basis for applying relevant multiplier, and as per the judgment of the Apex Court i n Sarla Verma case, the relevant multiplier applicable to a person aged 38 years is 15. If the multiplicand of Rs.60,000/- is multiplied by the multiplier 15, the compensation which the respondents-claimants would be entitled to, comes to (Rs.60,000/- x 15) Rs.9,00,000/-. The respondents-claimants have filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to enhance the compensation. Admittedly, the appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dindigal v. Sujatharani (1 supra), has held that Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, does not provide for filing any cross-objections by the respondent in the appeal and in the absence of any such provision, the cross-objections filed by the respondent does not deserve for consideration and that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have no application to the Motor Vehicles Act. That being so, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and admitted to by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, the cross-objections filed by the respondents-claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the present appeal are not maintainable, and are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the cross-objections filed by the respondents- claimants are rejected, while the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.12,80,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-, and in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma case, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 29th September, 2011 IBL [1] 2011 (5) ALD 156 (DB) [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121