Important Point—Deduction made by Court below i.e. 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased, cannot be sustained.

1. Since the claimant, in both the claim petitions, is one and the same being husband and father of the two deceased, respectively, and arise out of the same accident that occurred on 12.01.2004, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the appeals are preferred by the appellant herein, New India Assurance Company Limited, who is the 4th respondent in the claim petitions, assailing the judgments of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed in O.P.Nos.433 and 432, respectively, on 18.05.2006. The grounds on which, MACMA. No.1933 of 2006 is preferred are that the Court below failed to see that the allegations made in the claim petition categorically reveal that the lorry was responsible for the accident and that the negligence is also attributed to the lorry driver but the Court below grossly erred in holding that both, driver of the lorry and the driver of the auto, are responsible to the accident; it also failed to see that according to P.Ws.1 and 2 the auto was not in motion at the time of accident and the lorry came and dashed the stationed auto and that shows that the driver of lorry alone was responsible for the accident and the contra finding of the Court below is not based on any evidence.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company, and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant took this Court through the deposition of P.W.2, eye witness of the accident, who, in her chief examination, categorically attributed the negligence to both the vehicles by saying that both the vehicles are responsible for the accident. But in the cross examination, P.W.2, attributed negligence only to the driver of the lorry. Hence, her evidence becomes unreliable.

5. The evidence of P.W.1, in his cross examination, shows that he came to know about the accident after its occurrence and later he went to the spot. Hence he cannot be termed as an eye witness. He admitted that the petition is prepared on his instructions and according to him the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the auto. But the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be solely relied upon as the information that he received with regard to the accident is only hear say and his evidence is inconsistent with the contents of the charge sheet, which shows that the accused who is the driver of auto came from behind along with passengers and was proceeding towards Pudur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to deceased No.5 therein and then lost control over the auto and on seeing the Tipper lorry coming in opposite direction at a high speed, with a load of Kankar powder, he jumped by leaving the auto. According to him, the lorry was also coming in high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed to the auto and ran over it, as a result of which, the deceased died in that accident. Hence, it is obvious from the charge sheet that initially there was an accident caused by the auto driver and the same led him into a confusion and in that confusion, by seeing the lorry coming in high speed rashly and negligently, the auto driver jumped and left the auto, leaving the inmates to their fate. If he had been in the vehicle and took precautions, perhaps he could have avoided the accident. By any stretch of understanding, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the auto driver. The contents of the charge sheet can very well be relied upon as it is a document filed after due investigation. Apart from P.W.2 there are other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet hence, I do not feel any necessity to interfere with the judgment of the Court below with regard to the negligence.

6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the multiplier suitable for the age of claimant, 37 years, would be 15, as per