The age of the deceased, not the parents' age, is the factor to determine the multiplier to be applied for calculating the compensation amount under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2009 in M.V.O.P. No. 500 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole the 2nd respondent-M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Nellore, represented by its branch manager, Nellore, has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience.

3. The Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of his son-Bathineni Anil, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.04.2004. The said Bathineni Anil would hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased.

4. On the factual side, on 13.04.2004, the deceased travelled with a load of brandy bottles from Hyderabad to Ongole in a lorry bearing registration No. A.P. 16 U 0023, at about 5.15 AM, a lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 T 5502, driven by the driver-3rd respondent, came in the opposite direction at high-speed rashly and negligently dashed against the lorry in which Claimant was travelling. As a result, the deceased, who sat in the lorry's cabin, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their respective written statements.

6. Respondent No. 3 adopted the written statement filed by the first respondent. It is contended in the written statements that the driver of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16 U 0023 drove rashly and negligently, without blowing the horn, and dashed the lorry bearing No. A.P. 31 T 5502. There was no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent. The driver of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16 U 0023 is only responsible for the accident. It also submitted that the said lorry driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence, a valid permit to ply or a valid insurance policy. It is further contended that the Claimant is not dependent upon the deceased's income.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated relevant issues. During the trial, PWs. 1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, they let in no oral evidence; however, marked a copy of the policy as Ex.B.1.

8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.4,39,000/- to the Claimant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

9. Heard the counsel for the 2nd respondent/appellant and the counsel for the claimant/1st respondent. Perused the material on record.

10. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the appellant herein, has contended that the Claimant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. It is further contended that as the deceased was unmarried, the age of the deceased's parents is relevant in the choice of the multiplier, and the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the deceased's monthly earnings as it is a case of a bachelor's death.

11. Learned counsel for the Claimant has supported the Tribunal's findings and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal awarded a just and reasonable compensation amount or needs reduction.

13. After reading the evidence on record and considering submissions made on either side, this Court is of the view that there is no serious dispute about the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident. There is no dispute about the accident happening and the respondent's liability to pay compensation. The claimants have not preferred any appeal or cross-objections questioning the finding and observations made by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent addressed his argument only regarding the quantum of the compensation amo