IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2986 of 2003 Between: Mosangi Prameela & 4 others .. Appellants AND P.V. Narayana Rao & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2986 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.301 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 25.10.2002. The first respondent also filed his cross objections against the award. 2. Insofar as the appeal and cross objections between the appellants and the first respondent are concerned, they entered into a compromise and the compromise on behalf of the minor appellants 3 to 5 was permitted to be entered into by granting leave in C.M.A.M.P.No.1139 of 2011 on 25.07.2011. Similarly, in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2887 of 2011, the compromise was recorded between the appellants and the first respondent due to which the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections were dismissed without costs in respect of the appellants and the first respondent. 3. Therefore, the present consideration is confined only to the appellants and the second respondent. 4. The factual background is that Lingaiah, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 5 was going by walk on 22.08.1996 at about 10.00 a.m. when car No.ATX-9459 dashed against him near Narketpally. Lingaiah died on the spot and at the age of 30 years, he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as an employee. Hence, the dependents claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- originally from the first respondent only. 5. The first respondent contested the claim contending that he sold the car to the second respondent on 21.08.1996 for Rs.54,000/- and delivered possession of the car to him under a receipt. He further claimed that an application was submitted to the Regional Transport Officer, Khairathabad, for a no objection certificate and assigning a new registration number. An endorsement was made on the application and also the RC book. 6. The second respondent was consequently impleaded as a party who denied purchasing the car from the first respondent or employing the driver who caused the accident, while also denying the other allegations of the claimants. 7. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and the liability thereof. 8. P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined during enquiry and Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 to B-5 were marked. 9. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the rash and negligent driving of the car resulted in the accident and death of Lingaiah. The Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation by taking the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.600/- per month as against Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate showing the monthly salary to be Rs.1,161/- per month. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A-5 did not show the nature of the employment or the qualification of the deceased or the nature of his job. The Tribunal also considered the deceased to be not a permanent employee and the Tribunal took into account the fact that no document was also filed about the age of the deceased and, hence, applied a multiplier of 15. The loss of dependency was, hence, calculated at Rs.1,08,000/- , while loss of consortium was assessed at Rs.10,000/- and non-pecuniary damages were assessed at Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal also concluded that the first respondent was probablised to have sold his car to the second respondent and further concluded that the liability for compensation should be apportioned to both the respondents equally in the light of the precedents cited before it. An award was passed, accordingly, against both the respondents for Rs.1,33,000/- payable with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs equally. The challenge to the award by the appellants is about the earnings and contribution of the deceased to the family being not in tune with the salary certificate and also about application of a lower multiplier. The claimants also contended that they should have been granted Rs.30,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss of consortium and also interest at 12% per annum. 10. While reiterating that the present consideration is confined only to the half of the compensation payable by the second respondent, he did not challenge the award in any manner and though he entered appearance before this Court through a learned counsel, none appeared for him during the course of hearing. 11. The point for consideration is only about the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the appellants are entitled from the second respondent. 12. The Tribunal which referred to Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate issued by Raasi Refractories Ltd., the employer of the deceased did not elaborate as to why the salary certificate was not acted upon to assess the probable loss of dependency of the family members of the deceased. The observation of the Tribunal that the nature of the job is not reflected in Ex.A-5 is not appropriate when it was specifically stated in Ex.A-5 that Lingaiah was working as a Junior Operator in the company from 01.04.1993 to 21.08.1996. The salary certificate could not have given graphic details of the nature of the employment or the qualification of the deceased and how the Tribunal considered that he is not a permanent employee of the employer is also not intelligible from the impugned award. In the absence of any contrary evidence, Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate ought to have been acted upon by the Tribunal to form the basis for arriving at the loss of dependency of the appellants. If Ex.A-5 did not disclose any deductions from the salary for any reason, the entire sum of Rs.1,161/- had to be taken into account and out of the same, 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive in the light of the number of dependents being 5 as per the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. If so, if the income is rounded off to Rs.1,200/- and 1/4th thereof is deducted, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.900/- per month or Rs.10,800/- per annum. Ex.A-2-Post Mortem Certificate assessed the age of the deceased approximately at 30 years and the assessment by the medical expert can be acted upon in the absence of any other material. If so, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra) is 17 and the loss of dependency, therefore, comes to Rs.1,83,600/-. As laid down in the same precedent, a sum of Rs.5,000/- each should be granted towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- should be granted towards loss of consortium making the total compensation to which the appellants are entitled to Rs.2,03,600/-. The same can be rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/-. Interest on the compensation can be maintained at the same rate at which the Tribunal awarded and the second respondent’s liability for half of the compensation will make him liable to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The impugned award has to be modified, accordingly, so far as the second respondent is concerned. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, without costs, in part, in respect of the second respondent and the award, dated 25.10.2002, in O.P.No.301 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs against the second respondent. No further directions need be given at this distance of time about the disbursement of the compensation and the apportionment of the compensation shall be in the same proportion in which the said apportionment was ordered in the impugned award. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th August, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2986 of 2003 Date: 19th August, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298