1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order and decree dated 13.03.2007 passed in O.P.No.2820 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition laid under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act, seeking compensation for the death of Sri Baskar (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 Smt. P. Sumita, learned counsel representing Sri N. Vijender Reddy, learned counsel on record for the claimants, and Sri V. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel 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 20.10.2004 at about 11:30 p.m., the deceased and one Mallesh were proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 28 AD 7576 towards Ramdevguda and when they reached Tippukhan Bridge, a DCM van bearing registration No.AP 3 U 922 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to Osmania General Hospital and were succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 21.10.2004.

5. The claimants are the parents, younger brothers and sister of the deceased, who was aged 22 years and was working as a centering worker. The claimants claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and that they were dependent upon his earnings. Thus, the claimants instituted the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, 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 on the part of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

7. In order to establish the claim, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED

TRIBUNAL

8. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- to claimant Nos.1 and 2 and the claim against claimant Nos.3 to 5 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 order?”

ANALYSIS:

10. Admittedly, neither of the respondents preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal while considering the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1, A2, A6 and A7 i.e., certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, MVI report and scene of offence, answered issue No.2 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 income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum instead of Rs.4,000/- per month and that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the age of the deceased and the appropriate multiplier.

12. It is pertinent to note that though the claimants filed salary certificate of the deceased, the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A8 i.e., salary certificate of the deceased and assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month as if the claimants have not field any documentary evidence. It is evident that the learned Tribunal observed in the impugned order that when there is no proof with regard to the income of the deceased, the deceased has to be considered as non earning person. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in not considering Ex.A8 salary certificate of the deceased. As per the claim petition, Ex.A8 and the calculation memo filed by the claimants, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.4,000/- per month. It is settled law that producing salary certificate itself is sufficient to establish the income of the deceased, more particularly, when the contesting respondents failed to discard the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, so far as salary of the deceased is concerned.

13. Thus, by taking into consideration the year of the accident and also the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time and also considering the oral evidence of PW1 along with documentary evidence under Ex.A8, this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.4,000/-. 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.2,000/- (Rs.4,000/- - Rs.2,000/-). That apart, since the claimant was self employed and aged 22 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.2,800/- (Rs.2,000/- + Rs.800/-) and the annual contribution comes to Rs.33,600/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 months).

14. 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 21 to 25 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.6,04,800/- (Rs.33,600/- x 18).

15. A careful perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that except awarding meager compensation of Rs.2,000/- under the head, ‘funeral expenses’, the learned Tribunal failed to award, compensation under conventional heads i.e., ‘loss of estate’ and ‘loss of consortium. It is to be seen that 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 Pranay Sethi’s case (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’.

16. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,25,800/- (Rs.6,04,800/- + Rs.33,000/- + Rs.88,000/-).

17. Though the claimants had restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/-, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003 ACJ 12) that there is no restriction that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or the Court should invariably be limited to the amount claimed in the claim petition, provided the claimant is otherwise found entitled to such compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record.

18. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition to the extent of claimant Nos.3 to 5 without assigning any reason. It appears that since claimant Nos.3 to 5 were younger brothers and sister of the deceased, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition under the impression that they cannot be considered as dependent on the earnings of the deceased. 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 Nos.3 to 5 were not depending upon the earnings of the deceased, they are 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 learned Tribunal rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.

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 order 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.1,62,000/- to Rs.7,25,800/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The claimant Nos.1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.5,75,800/- in equal shares, whereas claimant Nos.3 to 5 are awarded Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of estate, love and affection. 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, 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 deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. 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.