IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.362 OF 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.No.2795 OF 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.362 OF 2008 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its The Branch Manager, Cunningham Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State … Appellant And: V.Manoranjani and two others … Respondents A N D M.A.C.M.A.No.2795 OF 2007 V.Manoranjani and another … Appellants And: C.Sreenivas and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.362 OF 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.No.2795 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.362 of 2008 is filed by the insurer assailing the order dated 22.08.2007 in M.VO.P.No.396 of 2003, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Chittoor, wherein the said claim application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,53,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. M.A.C.M.A.No.2795 of 2007 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. As the two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. The claimants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the death of the deceased V.Dilip Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.03.2002. The 1st claimant is the mother and the 2nd claimant is the brother of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was proceeding on his Kinetic Safari vehicle bearing No.AP 3 D 8335 and near APSRTC bus stand S.R.Puram, a lorry bearing No.CAM 8448, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, coming in the opposite direction, dashed against the kinetic safari of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injures and he was taken to Palliput hospital and later shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and then to CMC Hospital, Vellore up to 04.05.2002 and later he was again admitted in Government Hospital, Chittoor, where he died on 22.05.2002. He further pleaded that the deceased was aged 26 years and was employed in Cooperative Sugars Limited, Chittoor and drawing a net salary of Rs.4,986.55 Ps. A case in Cr.No.9 of 2002 was registered by S.R.Puram Police against the driver of the lorry and later a charge sheet was filed which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.402 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Puttur. 5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. Ex.X-1 accident register and Ex.X-2 case sheet were also marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.3,53,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred one appeal and not satisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the other appeal. 8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously challenged and even otherwise the evidence on record, particularly Ex.A-1-F.I.R, Ex.A-4-inquest report and Ex.A-6-charge sheet established the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. 9. The main contention of the insurer is that the death of the deceased about 52 days after the accident cannot be said to have occurred on account of the injuries sustained in the accident in view of the medical evidence of R.W.2, coupled with Ex.X-2 case sheet which showed that the deceased died on account of H.I.V. 10. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, testified that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A-4, the inquest report, states that the apparent cause of death of the deceased was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment. Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate also mentions the various injuries sustained by the deceased and with an opinion that the deceased died of septicimic shock due to multiple injuries. The charge sheet Ex.A-6 also states that the death of the deceased was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. R.W.2, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chittoor also deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased and also the treatment rendered under different spells and referring of the deceased to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. It is also in the evidence of R.W.2 that when the deceased again came back to Government Hospital, Chittoor it was detected that he was H.I.V positive. According to him, the cause of death was H.I.V bursting of abdomen. He could not, however, say the age of the H.I.V disease, but he stated that a patient diagnosed for H.I.V can live up to 6 to 8 years. In the cross-examination, R.W.2 admitted that on 31.03.2002, the deceased was admitted in the hospital with a burst injury on the abdomen which occurred due to the road accident. He also admitted that no test for H.I.V was conducted by their hospital. The doctor who is said to have detected the H.I.V in C.M.C Hospital is not examined. R.W.2 purports to depose about the H.I.V on the deceased based on the case sheet Ex.X-2. Admittedly, no test for H.I.V was conducted at Government Hospital, Chittoor on either of the two occasions when the deceased was admitted there. Ex.A-3 post mortem certificate does not show that the cause of death was on account of H.I.V. It is not even suggested to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, that the deceased was suffering from any H.I.V. Simply because, it is noted somewhere in the case sheet that the C.M.C Hospital found that the deceased was testing positive for HIV and in the absence of evidence of the doctor concerned who conducted the test on the deceased for H.I.V, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was on account of H.I.V, but not the injury sustained in the accident. The evidence on record would establish that the deceased received multiple injuries in the accident and he has been continuously under treatment in one hospital or the other and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries, as they developed septicemia. The death of the deceased is, therefore, relatable to the injuries sustained in the accident. The contention of the insurer that the death was on account of H.I.V., remains totally unsubstantiated. 11. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,986/- per month as per the salary certificate ExA-7 which comes to Rs.59,832/- per annum and deducted one-third thereof personal expenses. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], a deduction of 50% is to be made towards personal expenses in case of unmarried person. The contribution of the deceased to the family would, therefore, come to Rs.29,916/-. As the deceased was bachelor, the age of the mother, the 1st claimant, is to be taken into consideration. As per the inquest report-Ex.A-4, the 1st claimant was aged 50 years. As per the above said decision of the Apex Court, the suitable multiplier would be ‘13’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.3,88,908/-. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,98,908/-, which is rounded off to Rs.4 lakhs. The claimants are entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the above said amount as per the above said decision. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.362 of 2008 filed by the insurer is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.2795 of 2007 filed by the claimants is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 3rd January 2012 Lrkm. [1] (2009)6 SCC 121