IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4709 of 2003 Between: Racherla Sthaiah and another .. Appellants AND V. Satyamurthy and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 31-01-2003 in O.P.No.649 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal. Racherla Kiran Kumar, aged 22 years, and a student of III year Engineering, along with Yadagiri was coming on a scooter as a pillion rider on 25-10-2001 and at the outskirts of Kothagattusingaram village at about 4.30 P.M., tipper No.APO-2T- 5115, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, hit the scooter. Kiran Kumar died on the spot and his parents filed the claim for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tipper. The Police of Shyampet registered Crime No.122 of 2001 in respect of the incident. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer contested the claim stating that it was rash and negligent driving by Yadagiri of the scooter that led to the accident and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the tipper driver. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive and the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the age and the income of the deceased and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During the course of enquiry into the claims arising out of the death of Kiran Kumar and injuries to Yadagiri, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. The respondents were recorded to have admitted the insurance policy. The Tribunal rendered the common award concluding from the evidence of the injured-PW.2 that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tipper. The Tribunal accepted the Post Mortem report-Ex.A.3 and inquest report-Ex.A.2 to conclude that Kiran Kumar died due to the accident and from Ex.A.6-SSC certificate, his age was taken as 21 years, while he died as a bachelor, the age of the mother at 45 years was taken as basis for computing the compensation and the Tribunal rejected the claim towards transport charges, damage to clothing, pain and suffering etc., but awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. While relying on Ex.A.6-SSC certificate, Ex.A.7-marks memo, Ex.A.8- marks memo of B. Tech. and Ex.A.9-Bonafide certificate, the Tribunal assessed his probable capacity to earn income only at Rs.15,000/- p.a., deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and on an annual contribution of Rs.10,000/-, it applied a multiplier of 15. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- to the parents, while dismissing the claim made by the brothers-claimants 3 and 4. The compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs and was directed to be shared equally by the parents. The parents of Kiran Kumar are the appellants herein claiming that the deceased would have earned more than Rs.10,000/- per month after completion of his B. Tech. course and the principles laid down for assessment of income of such persons were ignored by the Tribunal. Hence, they desired the balance compensation claimed by them to be awarded. Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri V. Sri Hari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer are heard and the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. The claimants 3 and 4 did not challenge the dismissal of their claim in any manner. While the consideration herein is, hence, confined to the entitlement of the appellants to just compensation, the conclusions of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the tipper being the cause for the accident and the death of Kiran Kumar only due to the injuries received in the accident remained unchallenged and have become final. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the parents is, hence, not in question. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Sri Ghanta Rama Krishna, learned counsel rightly relied on the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another[1] wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the claim of an injured Engineering final year student and the Apex Court considered that it can be reasonably assumed that on completion of Engineering Course, the injured would have got a good job either a very decent job in private sector or on joining government service in the pay scale of an Assistant Engineer. The student was presumed to be capable of earning at least at Rs.60,000/-p.a. Fair chances of promotion and remote chances of high positions were ignored due to uncertainties of life, but the Apex Court considered it fair and reasonable to assess the future earnings of the Engineering student at Rs.60,000/-p.a. taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis. The deceased Kiran Kumar herein stands on an identical footing except for being a III year Engineering student and not IV year Engineering student and in the ordinary and natural course of human events, had he not become the unfortunate victim of this accident, he would have successfully completed his Engineering course as probablised by Exs.A.6 to A.9. The probable income, which he could have earned, could not have been estimated at such a low figure as equal to the income of non-earning persons presumed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act as done by the Tribunal and on the strength of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, his capacity to earn can be safely taken at Rs.60,000/- p.a. The dependants being only the parents, as per the decision of the Apex Court, 50% of such probable income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2] and the multiplier applicable according to the same decision to a person of aged 45 years is 14, which is the relevant multiplier with reference to the age of the mother of Kiran Kumar. If so, towards loss of dependency, the parents would have been entitled to Rs.4,20,000/- and in addition, they are also entitled as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The loss of love and affection should also be adequately compensated by awarding another sum of Rs.10,000/- and therefore, the parents are entitled to a just and adequate compensation of Rs.4,40,000/-. Deducting Rs.1,67,000/- already granted by the Tribunal, there should be an enhancement of Rs.2,73,000/-. Considering the long period for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be restricted to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs, of course, should be granted to the parents. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal being thus not in tune with the principles laid down by the Apex Court has to be upwardly revised accordingly. In the result, the award dated 31-01-2003 in O.P.No.649 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-03-2011 Ksn [1] (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 254 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298