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.46 of 2010 Dated:17-11-2011 Between: P.Vinodadevi @ Vinoda and others. ….Appellants. And M.Ramesh and another ….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.A.No.46 of 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of claimants is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.235 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad on 27.11.2009. The appellants are the claimants and they have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of 12,00,000/- for the death of P.G.Vishender @ Vishnender in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and claimant No.3 is the sister of the deceased. According to them on 08.12.2005 at about 11.00 A.M., the deceased along with his friend Shiva Kumar were going on motorcycle bearing No.AP 10AD 3978 as pillion rider from Hyderabad to Siddipet to attend the marriage of their friend’s sister at Siddipet and when they reached the outskirts of Pregnapur village near Rane Factory turning, a DCM van bearing No.AP 9W 9011 came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to C.H.C., Gajwel. Later, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Vikrampuri, Secunderabad, where he died while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased aged about 21 years and he was studying IV year engineering in Electronics and communication and also earning Rs.10,000/- per month by giving tuitions. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained exparte. The insurance company has opposed the said application by filing the counter pleading that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the DCM van and the petitioners are put to strict proof with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place and the age, income and avocation of the deceased and also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP 9W 9011? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Exs.C.1 and C.2. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van. With regard to the quantum of compensation, since the deceased was non earning member, the Tribunal has taken Rs.15,000/- per year as notional income as per II schedule attached to the M.V.Act and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses arrived at Rs.10,000/- per year towards loss of dependency and by taking the age of the mother at 44 years, applied multiplier ‘13’ and awarded an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards Transportation. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,55,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that since the deceased is studying IV year engineering, his income has to taken as Rs.12,000/- per month and the Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier and if the same are taken into consideration, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as claimed by them. The Standing Counsel for the insurance company on the other hand has pleaded that the deceased was not an earning member and as the claimants could not establish about the earning of Rs.10,000/- by giving tuitions, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration Rs.15,000/- P.A. as per the II schedule attached to the M.V.Act and tried to support the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the deceased was studying IV year engineering course in Electronics and communication in M.J. Engineering College, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as on the date of his death. In “B.Ramulamma and others v. M/s Venkatesh bus union, rep. By A.M.Velu Mudalliyar, Bangalore and another[1]” the Division Bench of this Court has held that for IV year Engineering year student, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased is a IV year Engineering student, his income has to be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased is unmarried, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”. Thus, the loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is ‘45’ years, as per the decision rendered in Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the proper multiplier is ‘15’. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,000 X 12 X 15 = Rs.10,80,000/-. Since it is the case of death, the claimants are not entitled for any amount towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,90,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,90,000/- from Rs.1,55,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:17 -11-2011 Ksp [1] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.)