IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.655 of 2002 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. rep. by its Branch Manager, Opp. Collectorate, Karimnagar .. Appellant AND Mekala Laxmi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award passed in O.P. No.96 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 04-12-2001 granting a compensation of Rs.1,97,400/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs against the owner and insurer of Jeep No.AP 15U 871. The background for the appeal is that Mekala Kistopher, aged 21 years and working as cutter and buffer in M/s. Karimnagar Tyres, was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. On 20-11-1998 he was involved in a motor accident due to Jeep No. AP 15U 871, driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, suddenly stopping due to application of brakes and due to the rash and negligent act, Kistopher, who was travelling in the Jeep, was thrown out of the Jeep, fell on the road and sustained fatal head injury. He succumbed to injuries in spite being treated at Government hospital, Karimnagar immediately and Crime No.215 of 1998 was registered against the 1st respondent and he was charge-sheeted before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. The parents and the sister of Kistopher lost their only source of livelihood due to the death of Kistopher and hence, they sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. While the 1st respondent remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim contending that the petitioners are put to strict proof of all their allegations and the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident, the subsistence of insurance and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During the enquiry, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1. It rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the first information report Ex.A.1, the inquest report Ex.A.2 and the post-mortem report Ex.A.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident, probablised that Kistopher died only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal went on to consider that the insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent was in subsistence by the time of the accident and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the claimants. The Tribunal proceeded to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.40/- per day or Rs.1,200/- per month and after deducting one-third of such income towards personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, arrived at the annual contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.9,600/-. Taking the age of 20 years of the deceased into account as the basis for application of multiplier 19, the Tribunal considered the claimants to be entitled to Rs.1,82,400/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate under the impugned award. The insurer challenged the said award in this appeal contending mainly that the application of multiplier taking the age of the deceased into account was incorrect and the age of the mother should have been taken into account to apply the relevant multiplier 8 relatable to the age of 56 years. The appellant also challenged the assessment of compensation on other grounds. Smt. B. Pallavi, learned counsel representing Sri Kishore Rai, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Smt. K.V. Rajashree, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants are heard. The point for consideration is as to what is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Point: Though in the grounds of appeal, the insurer questioned the award to be based on assumptions and presumptions without any factual basis, the main ground of challenge stressed during the arguments is about the wrong application of multiplier, but not on other grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Md. Ahmedqureishi and others[1], wherein the learned Judge held that the age of the parents is the relevant factor for arriving at the appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing the compensation in case of death of an unmarried young boy. That was also a case where the claimants included the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, while in the present case, the claimants are the parents and sister. The principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the application of multiplier 19 by the Tribunal with reference to the age of the deceased in respect of the claim made by the parents and sister for a compensation, is obviously against the settled principle in this regard. Therefore, the next question would be as to what would the appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing the compensation. The appellant’s counsel filed a memo stating that the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 8 and therefore, the loss of dependency should be arrived at Rs.76,800/- and adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, the total compensation can be only Rs.91,800/-. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand relied on Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2], which is the precedential authority holding the field as of now, to contend that the multiplier to be adopted is not less than 11 as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court. It is seen from the principle adopted by the Apex Court in the decision that for a person aged between 51 and 55 years, the multiplier would be 11, whereas for a person aged from 56 to 60, the multiplier would be 9. Though the age of the mother was given in the claim petition as 56 years, the age is given obviously only in approximation and verification of evidence on record shows that there is no specific evidence about the exact age of the mother by the time of the accident. As the age was, thus, given only in approximation and as the copy of the charge- sheet filed by the police before the criminal Court marked as Ex.A.4 mentions the age of the mother as 55 years, which mention must have been after verification by the police, it will be in the interests of justice to adopt the age of the mother as 55 years by the time of the accident and therefore, adopt 11 as the suitable multiplier applicable to the facts of the case. If so, the compensation to be awarded towards loss of dependency and loss of estate would come to Rs.1,20,600/- and it is to be noted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards the other permissible pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages like loss of love and affection, etc., but the claimants did not prefer any appeal or cross objections questioning the same. Rounding off the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- would be granting just and adequate compensation to the claimants under the circumstances and interest awarded at 9 per cent per annum should remain undisturbed at this distance of time. Therefore, the award in O.P. No.96 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 04-12-2001 is modified restricting the compensation awarded to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only) with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs and no directions need be given at this distance of time concerning disbursement of the compensation to the claimants. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-08-2010 Svv [1] 2001 (1) ALD 517 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121