IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of bachelor deceased, deductions for personal expenses can be adjusted based on the number of dependents, allowing for 1/3rd deduction when multiple dependents exist.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents 1 and 2.

2. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 filed M.V.O.P. No. 194 of 2020 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Poura Sreevidhya (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 17.01.2020 at 4.30 p.m. near ECO Park, R.K. Valley to Vempally main road of Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

3. The claim was partly allowed for a sum of Rs.48,17,788/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization against the present appellant-insurance company and the 3rd respondent-owner, vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (in short ‘the Tribunal’).

4. The claim petition was filed inter-alia on the averments that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477 driven by the 4th respondent herein, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant. The deceased was aged about 25 years. She was working as Clerk in the State Bank of India, R.K. Valley Branch, Vempalli Mandal and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.

5. The respondents 3 and 4 herein, before the Tribunal remained ex-parte.

6. The appellant-insurance company filed written statement, inter alia denying the material averments of the petition and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof of the factum of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, existence of the valid driving licence and of the insurance policy etc. The amount of compensation as claimed was said to be highly excessive.

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver (R2) of car bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477 causing death of deceased?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

8. The claimants examined the 1st respondent as PW-1. One Y. Ramu, eye witness of the accident, who was also injured was examined as PW-2. One P. Kanakadurgaiah, the employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3 and Ex.A8 was marked through him. Ex.A8 is the appointment letter of the deceased. Besides other documentary evidence were also marked as mentioned in the above order of the Tribunal, Exs.A1 to A7.

9. On behalf of insurance company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

10. The Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No. AP 31 AZ 0477, in which the deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company and the policy was subsisting on the date of the accident.

11. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.23,347/- after all the deductions as per Ex.A7-pay slip. The age of the deceased was recorded as 26 years 6 months 10 days i.e. in the age group of 26-30 years. It awarded 50% as future prospects being permanent employee of the State Bank of India as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. It applied the multiplier ‘17’. On the point of Personal expenses, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- was awarded to the widowed mother of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the only submission that the deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal legally erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. He submitted that in view of Sarl