1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') in O.P.No.167 of 2005, whereby the claim petition laid under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation for the death of Sri Sachin Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a road traffic accident, was partly allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

3. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte before the learned Tribunal and has not entered appearance in this appeal either. The material available on record has been perused.

FACTS IN BRIEF

4. The case of the claimants, as borne out from the record, is that on 11.03.2005, in the afternoon, while the deceased was proceeding from Indira Nagar locality towards the APSRTC Bus Stand, Adilabad, a lorry bearing registration No.MP 04 K 4199 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle’) belonging to respondent No.1, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner near Laxmi Engineering Workshop, hit the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased suffered multiple injuries all over his body and died on the spot.

5. The claimants, being the parents and elder brother of the deceased, who was aged 20 years and was working as a Computer Operator in M/s. GS Oils Limited, Adilabad, claimed compensation on the ground that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and that they were dependent upon his earnings, accordingly instituted the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, pleading that the untimely death of the deceased had put them to shock and mental agony which cannot be compensated in any manner.

6. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and was accordingly set ex parte. Respondent No.2, the insurer, filed a counter denying the material averments and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant and, thus prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

7. In order to establish the claim, claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 apart from examining PWs 2 and 3 and exhibiting Exs.A1 to A9 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent No.2 neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

8. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,71,500/- to claimant Nos.1 and 2 and the claim against claimant No.3 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

9. On considering the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination in the present appeal is:

               “Whether the appellants/claimants have made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequent interference with the impugned judgment?”

ANALYSIS:

10. Admittedly, neither of the respondents preferred any appeal challenging the impugned judgment. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal while considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3 (attested copies of FIR, charge sheet and PME report), answered issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle.

11. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- instead of Rs.6,000/- and in awarding inadequate amounts under various heads, including loss of estate. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the age and income of the deceased and the appropriate multiplier. Accordingly, the claimants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

12. As per the claim petition, Ex.A6 and the calculation memo filed by the claimants, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A6 on the ground that account books or any registers pertaining to the staff of GS Oil Mills, where the deceased was alleged to have been working prior to the accident, were not produced by PW3. Once salary certificate is produced under Ex.A6 and authorized person i.e., proprietor of GS Oil Mills, where the deceased used to work, was examined as PW.3, non production of account books or registers do not materially shatter the claim of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. It is settled law that once salary certificate is produced, non examination of its author will not discard the said document until and unless the contesting respondent successfully rebuts the said document. In the instant case, the respondent No.2 failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to discard the oral evidence of PW3 or documentary evidence under Ex.A6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others (2023 (1) ALT 47 (SC)), observed as under:

               “…….. we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay slip (Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife (appellant No.1 herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State at relevant time.”

13. Thus, it is clear that producing salary certificate itself is sufficient to establish the income of the deceased/insured. Apart from that the claimants have also produced Exs.A7 and A8, which are original certificate and marks memo showing that deceased had completed Advanced Diploma in Computer Applications. These documents discloses that deceased was familiar with computer knowledge. Furthermore, learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month without any basis.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the oral evidence of PW1, which is corroborating the evidence of PW3 along with documentary evidence under Exs.A6 to A8, this Court is the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.6,000/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his earnings has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Hence, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.3,000/- (Rs.6,000/- - Rs.3,000/-). That apart, since the claimant was self employed and aged 20 years, future prospects at 40% is required to be considered as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700). After addition of 40% towards future prospects, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) and the annual contribution comes to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 months).

15. Now coming to the age of the deceased and the relevant multiplier, the learned Tribunal erred in adopting the age of the mother of the deceased instead of considering the age of the deceased while adopting suitable multiplier. In Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012 ACJ 2002), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.17 that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. It was further held that there may be number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and therefore the age of dependents has not nexus with the computation of compensation. A similar view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Mansoor and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another (2013 ACJ 2849). As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298), the appropriate multiplier for the persons aged between 15 to 20 years is ‘18’. Thus the learned Tribunal erred in adopting wrong multiplier. After multiplying the annual contribution of the deceased to his family with the relevant multiplier ‘18’ comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400/- x 18).

16. As seen from the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.7,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is without any basis. The claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement) under conventional heads (loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-) as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra). In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others ((2018) 18 SCC 130) and since the claimant Nos.1 and 2 lost their unmarried son, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% enhancement each) under the head ‘filial consortium’.

17. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,28,200/- (Rs.9,07,200/- + Rs.33,000/- + Rs.88,000/-).

18. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition to the extent of claimant No.3 without assigning any reason. It appears that since claimant No.3 was elder brother of the deceased, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition under the impression that he cannot be considered as dependent. In Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ((2007) 10 SCC 643) the Honourable Supreme Court held that the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease merely because there is an absence of dependency, and that even where there is no dependency there is a loss to the estate, so that a person who is a legal representative but not a dependent can yet be a beneficiary of the estate. To the same effect is the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune v. Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji (2021 LawSuit (Guj) 5278), wherein it was held, following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, that the expression 'legal representative' is required to be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the Act and is not confined to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased, and that it is sufficient for a claimant to establish loss of dependency, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death having a remedy for realisation of compensation.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that, even though claimant No.3 was not depending upon the earnings of the deceased, he is entitled for compensation towards loss of estate, love and affection.

20. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation on both the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, jointly and severally.

CONCLUSION:

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lesser side and also adopting the wrong multiplier. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.

RESULT:

22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.2,71,500/- to Rs.10,28,200/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each and claimant No.3 is awarded Rs.1,28,200/- towards loss of estate, love and affection. All the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in the compensation amount awarded to them along with accrued interest without furnishing any security, however, subject to deposit of court fee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.