L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashG. Srinivas, the son of the 1st Respondent, and brother of the 2nd Respondent, was going by walk on the left side of the road, at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, at 10.15 a.m., on 10-05-2000. A scooter bearing No. AP-10-E-6639, owned by the 3rd Respondent and insured with the Appellant, coming from Uppal side, dashed against him. Srinivas was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, and he succumbed to injuries, six days thereafter, on 16-05-2000. Crime No. 143 of 2000 was registered against the rider of the scooter by the Police Station, Uppal.
2. Stating that the deceased was aged 23 years and earning Rs. 4,350/- per month, as a Mechanic at Modern Engineers, Patelnagar, Hyderabad, the Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 1598 of 2000, in the Court of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal-cum-Additional Special, Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ''the Tribunal''), claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, as compensation.
3. The 3rd Respondent filed counter, admitting the occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased, on account of the same. He denied his liability to pay the compensation. The Appellant herein has also filed counter. The very occurrence of the accident was denied, and the age and avocation of the deceased were disputed. Further allegation was that, the rider of the scooter did not hold valid driving licence. Through its order dated 29-09-2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,73,500/- with interest at 9% per annum and apportioned the same among the Respondents 1 and 2. The same is challenged in this appeal.
4. One of the principal contentions urged by the Appellant is that the deceased was unmarried, and instead of deducting half of his earnings towards his personal expenditure, the Tribunal deducted only one-third. Contentions that were advanced before the Tribunal are also repeated here.
5. The Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, opposed the C.M.A., by placing reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. According to them, there is no hard and fast rule, that half of the earnings of an unmarried deceased must be deducted.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the Respondents.
7. Taking into account the contents of the pleadings, filed by the Respondents 1 and 2, and the counters filed by the 3rd Respondent and the Appellant, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the deceased G. Srinivas died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of 1st Respondent''s vehicle by its driver ?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?
8. On behalf of the Appellant, P Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were filed. No oral evidence was adduced by the Appellant, and the certified copy of the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B-1. Though the Appellant disputed the very occurrence of the accident, the evidence on record clearly established that. An eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW-2, and the F.I.R., charge-sheet, post-mortem report, inquest report, were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged in this appeal.
9. The age of the deceased was determined on the basis of the S.S.C. marks memo, marked as Ex.A-5. However, since the deceased was unmarried, the age of his mother, the 1st Respondent, was taken as 45 years, though she pleaded that she is 43 years old. The wages were pleaded on the basis of the salary certificate issued by the Modern Engineers, marked as Ex.A-8. The correctness thereof was not seriously disputed. The salary was Rs. 4,350/-. However, the Tribunal took the same at Rs. 2,500/- per month. Even from this, one-third was deducted towards his expenditure.
10. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
11. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that, though the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that in respect of unmarried persons, the deduction can be to the extent of 50%, it was not laid down as an absolute Principle. It was clearly mentioned that, in case the family is large, a different approach can be adopted.
12. In
13. The Tribunal awarded interest at of 9% per annum. It is excessive; and in matters of this nature, the Hon''ble Supreme Court directed that the interest must be in the range of 7% to 7.5%.
14. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum, and affirming the award in all other respects.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
