JUDGMENT
Narayana Reddy, J.
1. This judgment according to law based on the legal material placed on record arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by appellants against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the validity and legality of adjudication made by and set forth in para 2, infra.
2. Award dated 5.2.2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Cuddapah, made in O.P. No. 607 of 1999 on its file and the decree of even date, that followed the same, therein.
3. Perused the material papers of the record.
4. Arguments were heard of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
5. The two appellants herein, correspond respectively to claimant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said O.P. No. 607 of 1999, of the said Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, correspond respectively to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein.
6. Under Section 169 of the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the trial of the O.P. of the present nature will be of a summary nature so also will be the inquiry into the C.M.A. of the present nature, that arose therefrom, like the one, in the case on hand.
7. After due settlement of the issues therein, the Tribunal tried the said O.P. No. 607 of 1999, filed before it by the two claimants against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, under Section 166 of the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for recovery of the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, together with simple interest and costs thereon, in respect of the death of their deceased minor son, aged about 16 years, in a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.4.99 around 9.20 a.m. near Roddavaripalli due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AAO 5571 owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, etc. The Tribunal tried the same in the process whereof, it examined PWs 1 and 2 and exhibited documentary evidence by way of Exhs. A-1 and A-5 and after hearing the arguments thereunto, finally adjudicated thereupon, by the now impugned award and the decree set forth in para 2, supra, as under:
“Dismissing the O.P., in toto, but without costs.”
8. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any independent C.M.As. or cross-objections questioning the foregoing adjudication made by the Tribunal.
9. The claimants have filed the present C.M.A., as set forth in para 2, supra, inter alia, urging that the impugned award and the decree and the foregoing adjudication are unsustainable on fact and law, and hence, are liable to be set aside in toto and the said O.P. has to be adjudicated upon, awarding the total compensation claimed therein of Rs. 1,50,000, etc.
10. On issue No. 1 framed by it, the said Tribunal in the impugned award gave a finding that the accident and the consequences thereof are not due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry bearing No. AAO 5571 and hence, he refused to award any compensation, and hence, dismissed the said O.P. in toto.
11. In respect of issue No. 1, there is the oral evidence of the eyewitness, examined as PW 1, and documentary evidence by way of Exhs. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and the insurance company of that lorry. The evidence of PW 2 and the documents are not impeached by the contesting respondents.
12. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), as to the mode of appreciation of evidence as to the culpability for the accident, etc. and also relied upon Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., , interpreting Sections 168 and 140 of the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, etc.
13. After considering the foregoing oral and documentary evidence and the factum of no rebuttal evidence from respondents, in the light of the arguments of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the finding of said Tribunal on issue No. 1 is wrong, and hence, has to be set aside, and hence, in its place a finding has to be recorded to the effect that the death of the deceased boy occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AAO 5571, at the time and place and on the date averred in the O.P., and hence, I record my finding thereon accordingly.
14. So therefore, it factually and legally, ipso facto follows that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 owner and the insurance company will be liable to pay jointly and severally, the compensation payable in respect of death of the deceased by way of fault based liability under Section 168 of the said Motor Vehicles Act.
15. The deceased is proved as a boy, aged 16 years, studying in 9th class and also assisting his father in doing milk business, etc. I see no tangible reason to doubt this version. In the circumstances, it can be safely presumed without any hesitation whatsoever, having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach to the question, that after becoming major and completing the studies, he will certainly do some work whether intellectual or manual and in any case undoubtedly, he will earn not less than Rs. 1,500 per month in the least, taking the average earnings during his remaining long life, but for his accidental premature death. So, I fix his earnings at Rs. 1,500 per month on the average. It is well-known that the cost of living as well as the earnings of all the employees as well as the manual workers are increasing day-to-day but not decreasing. Hence, this figure of Rs. 1,500 per month will be just and reasonable. So, per year, his earning comes to Rs. 18,000. Out of this one-third thereof which comes to Rs. 6,000 shall be deducted therefrom towards his personal expenditure. When so done, the balance of Rs. 12,000 will be his contribution to his family.
16. However, because the deceased boy died unmarried, the age of his mother, figuring as claimant No. 2, of 35 years, should be considered for deciding the appropriate multiplier. The appropriate multiplier, for the age of 35 years, as per Bhagawan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 ACJ 1052 (AP), will be 14.81. Therefore, when this multiplier is applied, the amount comes to Rs. 12,000 x 14,81 = Rs. 1,77,720. To this, conventional sum of Rs. 15,000 has to be added towards loss to the estate of the deceased. When so done, the sum total thereof comes to Rs. 1,92,720. However, the maximum O.P. claim is Rs. 1,50,000. Hence, the award has to be confined to this maximum sum only.
17. Hence, in respect of the death of the deceased covered by the O.P., total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 is payable together with simple interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till December, 2000 and at 9 per cent per annum from January, 2001, till actual realization thereof and with full costs thereon as is being ordered here-under.
18. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the C.M.A. as under:
(A) Setting aside in toto the impugned award and the decree set forth in para 2, supra; and
(B) Consequently, adjudicating upon the O.P. of the said Tribunal as under:
(1) Awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till December, 2000 and at 9 per cent per annum from January, 2001, till realization and with full costs thereon; and
(2) The Tribunal shall pass appropriate judicial orders as to the apportionment of the compensation with interest, etc., amongst the two claimants as well as in respect of the investment or payments thereof as per the latest case-law prevailing on the subject.