THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.2845 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short, ‘the insurance company’) challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2006, passed by the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad, in O.P.No.292 of 2003. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants, on account of the death of one Pathold Vinod (hereinafter, ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.05.2003 at 3:00 PM near Antharam Village crossroads.

1.1 The deceased was proceeding from Tandur to Peddumul in an Auto (No. AP-28U-8965) and the driver of the Auto drove in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle near the limits of Antharam village, and the Auto overturned. Consequently, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries, and he was given first-aid at Government Hospital, Tandur, and was referred to Osmania General Hospital for further treatment; and he died on the way to the Osmania General Hospital.

1.2 The deceased, by the date of his death, was survived by wife (aged 22) two minor children (6 years and 3 years old), father (aged 50 years), and mother (aged 45 years). The claimants filed O.P.No.292 of 2003 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the insurance company filed this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company; and Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company would contend that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum, and the compensation granted is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants would contend that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts of the case, and awarded the compensation and the same does not warrant interference.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of accident on 08.05.2003 at 3:00 PM near the Antharam Village limits when the deceased was travelling in the Auto bearing No.AP-28U-8965 and upon the Auto flipping due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto, and the deceased succumbing to the injuries suffered in the said accident, are not in dispute.

5.1 There was eye-witness (Smt. M. Savithri/PW-2) who deposed before the Tribunal about the manner in which the accident occurred, and also considering the Exs.A1 to A7, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto.

5.2 Further, the deceased was said to be working as Mason. The Tribunal was inclined to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, however, considering the evidence of PW-1 who deposed that the deceased used to earn around Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month.

5.3 With regard to the age of the deceased, there was no documentary proof filed by the claimants before the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal considered the Postmortem Report, and assessed his age as 25 years.

6. Having taken the age of the deceased as 25 years, and assessing the income at Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal had rightly deducted 1/3^rd from the income towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier ‘18’ for assessing the loss of future income/dependency, which is in accordance with the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 12009 (6) SCC 121.In fact, by calculation, the Tribunal arrived at a higher compensation of Rs.5,76,000/-, howe