HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2392 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P.No.229 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Judge – cum – Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Guntur questioning the quantum of compensation and also exonerating the liability of the second respondent. According to the case of the petitioners, on 01.01.2000 the deceased was coming in the Jeep AP 7 T 6452 from Tirupathi to Narasaraopet and near Kommalapudi cross road, the lorry AP 21T 6399 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, as a result of which the deceased received injuries and died. The deceased was said to be a field assistant in Nagarjuna Fertilizers Limited and drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioners are dependant on him. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry. Second respondent is the insurance company. The third respondent is the owner of the jeep and the fourth respondent is the insurance company. Respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte and the second respondent filed a counter stating that the vehicle was not fit for plying on the road and the driver was not having a valid licence and as per the information, the accident occurred due to the collision of the lorry and the jeep and thereby the compensation is to be apportioned. The driver of the jeep alone is responsible. The fourth respondent filed a counter denying the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the lorry and further pleaded that the jeep was not insured by the date of incident and consequently there is no liability. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the fourth respondent examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- against the third respondent alone. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the compensation granted by the lower tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the other respondents are not liable for payment of compensation? Learned counsel for the appellants contends that as per the evidence of P.W.2, who is the driver of the jeep, the incident happened due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and there is no evidence to the contrary and merely because the charge sheet was filed on the complaint of the driver of the lorry, the contentions of the petitioners should not have been rejected. According to him, even as per the counter of the second respondent there is collision between two vehicles and the compensation has to be apportioned. But, further the tribunal has wrongly exonerated the other respondents. It is to be noted that merely because the driver of the lorry has given a complaint against the driver of the jeep and the police has filed the charge sheet, it is not conclusive. The evidence of P.W.2, who is the driver of the jeep narrates the incident and his involvement is also denied. To contradict his evidence, there is no evidence on the side of the other respondents. The evidence of R.W.1 is only that the jeep was not insured. Therefore, when the counter of the second respondent clearly goes to show that there is a collision between two vehicles and the compensation has to be apportioned, the sole responsibility should not have been fixed on P.W.2 for the cause of incident. It cannot be lost sight that the determination of compensation and the liability of the insurance company is quitely different from the nature of the criminal liability to be fixed on the driver of the vehicle. When the second respondent specifically pleads that the compensation is to be apportioned, it is clearly a case of contributory negligence of both of the drivers of both the vehicles and the interested complaint given by the driver of the lorry without examining him cannot be taken as conclusive piece of evidence. In view of the above circumstances, the lower tribunal has erred in fixing the responsibility on P.W.2 alone and from the narration of evidence and the plea of the second respondent, it can safely be concluded that there is contributory negligence of 50% each on behalf of P.W.2 and the driver of the lorry, which is insured with the second respondent. So far as the quantum of compenstion is concerned, the deceased was said to be a field assistant in Nagarjuna Fertilizers Limited. To prove this, except Ex.A6 the appointment letter, there is no proof of payment of salary. The lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The earning capacity of the labourer is Rs.1500/-per month being minimum, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.1500/- and the annual contribution after deducting the personal expenditure of the deceased, is fixed at Rs.12,000/-. The deceased was said to be aged about 45 years and the ends of justice would meet if the multiplier ‘14’ is applied. The total dependency comes to 14 X 12000/-= Rs.1,68,000/-. The petitioners should be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.2000/- granted by the lower Tribunal towards funeral expenses. Total compensation comes to Rs.1,90,000/-. The above compensation shall be apportioned equally between the respondents 1 and 2 to an extent of 50% and the remaining 50% shall be paid by the third respondent individually as the insurance of the jeep was not established with the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 27th October, 2011 Rns