THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.532 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the Award, dt.27.01.2022, in MVOP.No.46 of2020 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Somiri Sahender, filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their son in a road accident that took place on 07.09.2019. On the fateful day, at about 19.30 hrs, when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle, succumbed to injuries and the rider of the motor cycle also sustained grievous injuries.

4. On the complaint of the 1st claimant, a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation, charge sheet was also filed.

5. It is the case of the claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale & healthy and apart from studying Degree II year, was also doing agriculture and milk vending business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their son. The 1^st respondent being the driver and 2^nd respondent being the owner, and 3^rd respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

6. The Tribunal after due enquiry and examining the evidence available on record, held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent-driver and awarded an amount of Rs.16,46,312/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, fixing joint and several liability on respondents No.1 to 3.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant; that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants without any material evidence, by erroneously taking the income of Rs.9,720/- per month, adding thereto 40% towards future prospects and applying multiplier of ‘19’, instead of taking multiplier ‘18’ and also awarding rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum instead of 6%, as considred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 and that the amount awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.40,000/- to the claimants towards loss of consortium is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) and prayed to set aside the impugned award.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted, and prayed to sustain the same by dismissing the present appeal.

9. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was a bachelor aged 19 years and studying II year. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company did not dispute

the findings of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle is validly insured with the 3^rd respondent. He however disputes the manner in which the calculations were made in granting just and proper compensation awarded to the claimants.

10. A perusal of the impugned award would show that as rightly contended by the appellant-insurance company, the Tribunal while relying on the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of AP in Setty Chandra Sekhar v. Mohd Ghouse wherein income of a graduate was taken @ Rs.12,000/- p.m., with deduction of 10% for every preceding year, has erroneously applied a 10% deduction instead of 20%, although the deceased was studying Degree II year.

11. Thus, after deducting 20% out of Rs.12,000/-, the loss of income of the deceased as on the date of his death,