THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2088 of 2006 (Dated : 19-01-2011) Between: Smt. Anees Fathima W/o late Shaik Fareeduddin and others …Appellants A n d Smt. Manpreet Kaur and National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2088 of 2006 JUDGMENT: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.5.2003 passed in O.P.No.1661 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judge allowed the O.P filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 in part, and granted compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- for the death of Shaik Fareeduddin in a road accident occurred on 3.2.2001. 2. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.No.1661 of 2001. The parties herein after referred to as they are arrayed in O.P.No.1661 of 2001. Claimant No.1 is the widow, claimants 2 and 3 are parents and claimant Nos.4 to 6 are brothers of Shaik Fareeduddin (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The deceased was a driver by occupation. On 3.2.2001, he was proceeding from Chandrayangutta towards Bandlaguda on a scooter. A lorry bearing No.MH 31 9293 came in high speed, driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter. As a result, the scooterist fell on the road and sustained serious injuries and met with an instantaneous death. A case in Crime No.35/2001 came to be registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH 31 9293 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of his death. The claimants filed O.P.No.1661 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was drawing Rs.33,000/- per month as a Driver in Saudi. He came to Hyderabad on a family visit. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offended lorry. 4. The insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The insurer denied rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offended lorry and also the earnings of the deceased. 5. The learned Chief Judge framed the following issues for consideration :- 1) whether the deceased Shaik Fareeduddin died in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s lorry ? 2)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3) To what relief ? 6. On behalf of the claimants, four witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked. On behalf of the insurer, copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B-1. The learned Chief Judge, on a consideration of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH 31 9293 and that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-. Accordingly, allowed the O.P in part, by an award dated 16.3.2003. Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurer. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the deceased was a driver by occupation and therefore, the trial Court ought to have taken the income of the deceased at least at Rs.3,000/- per month. He would also submit that as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC[1], the multiplier to be applied is 18 as the deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of his death. By applying the multiplier of 18 and taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, the compensation payable to the claimants is to be arrived at. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurer supported the order impugned in the appeal. 10. The issue that calls for adjudication is: Whether the appellants-claimants made out valid grounds for enhancement of the compensation ? 11. POINT : The facts, which are not in dispute are that the deceased was a driver and was aged 25 years as on the date of his death. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the Inquest report. The occupation of the deceased has been shown as driver in the inquest report. The other document, i.e., charge sheet, which has been exhibited as Ex.A-2, also shows the occupation of the deceased as driver. Keeping in view the occupation of the deceased, we are inclined to take the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. His contribution to the family, after giving deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, comes to Rs.2,000/- per month. The annual contribution comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. As per the decision in Sarla Verma’s case(1 supra), the multiplier to be adopted is 18 since the deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of his death. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. The learned Chief Judge granted Rs.10,000/- towards consortium to claimant No.1, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, transport charges etc., which we are not inclined to interfere. In all, the appellants- claimants are entitled to Rs.4,57,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,81,000/- to Rs.4,57,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Dt.19-01-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2088 of 2006 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) (Dated : 19-01-2011) [1] (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases 121