B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/2nd respondent/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company, Chennai, challenging the award dated 06.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 328/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 18,36,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the death of G.Nanda Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

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

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-on account of the death of G.Nanda Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.04.2014.

4. The facts would show that the petitioners are the parents of deceased G.Nanda Kumar. On 04.04.2014 at about 04.00 p.m. the deceased G.Nanda Kumar was proceeding on his Suzuki Access Scooty bearing No. AP 05 CF 8080 to K.L. University, Vaddeswaram, and by that time, the driver of truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TW 5921, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the said vehicle, and as a result, the van dashed against deceased's scooty on its back side, as a result, the deceased fell on road, and at that time the 3rd respondent/auto driver bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612, drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased, who was fell on road, as a result, the deceased sustained heavy injuries all over body and he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Tadepalli, and he succumbed to injuries. A case was registered in Cr. No. 165/2014 of Tadepalli P.S. for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against drivers of both vehicles.

The deceased is aged 20 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident, and he was studying B.Tech I Year in K.L. University, Kunchanapalli. The 1st petitioner spent huge amount for the education of the deceased. The deceased is the only son to their parents and they are having high hopes on him. Due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners put to severe mental shock and agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter by denying the averments of the petition, contending that the claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive. The policy of crime vehicle was in force on the date of accident, and the driver of 1st respondent vehicle was having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, and hence, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation and only the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

6. The 3rd respondent remained ex parte.

7. The 2nd respondent filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the petitioners are not at all original legal heirs of deceased. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The driver of the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident, and the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive.

8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP 07/TW 5921 or due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612, who is 3rd respondent herein or Suzuki Access Scooty bearing Reg. No. AP 05/CF 8080 i.e., petitioner or all of them

2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation If so, to what amount and from whom

4. To what relief"

9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-7 held that the accident took place due to negligent driving of truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TW 5921, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,36,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, against the respondents No. 1 and 2.

11. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company in the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent only, though police filed police report (charge sheet) against the drivers of the respondents No. 1 and 3 respectively, opining that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of both drivers. The Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/-per month and awarded excessive compensation.

12. The contention of the respondents/claimants is that the finding of the Tribunal is based on the material placed before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal awarded just compensation.

13. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TC 5921 and auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612 as contended by the appellant

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive

3. To what relief

14. POINT No. 1:

The case of the claimant is that the deceased was studying I year B.Tech Degree course in K.L. University, and on 04.04.2014 at about 04.00 p.m. he was travelling on his scooty bearing No. AP 05 CF 8080 towards K.L. University, and while so, the driver of the 1st respondent, who was driving the truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TW 5921 came behind the scooty in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty from behind. The deceased fell on the road, and as a result, the auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612 driven by the driver of the 3rd respondent coming behind the two vehicles, ran over the deceased, who fell down on the road, and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries, and he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada, and he died due to the injuries. Tadepalli police registered a case in Cr. No. 165/2014 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the drivers of 1st respondent and 3rd respondent, and later, police filed police report (charge sheet) against both the drivers.

15. The 1st respondent denied the case of the claimants and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The 2nd respondent/appellant contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The further contention of the 2nd respondent is that the driver of the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TC 5921 at the time of accident. The Tribunal on consideration of the material placed before it, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent.

16. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the police laid police report (charge sheet) after investigation against both drivers i.e., drivers of 1st respondent and 3rd respondent respectively, opining that the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers.

17. Father of the deceased was examined as P.W-1. He is not an eye witness to the accident. The claimants placed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-6 copy of police report (charge sheet) filed by the police in the evidence of P.W-1. Admittedly, police filed police report (charge sheet0 against both the drivers i.e., driver of truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TC 5921 and driver of auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612, opining that both the drivers drove their vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the motor cycle, and as a result the deceased died.

18. The claimants also examined an eye witness to the accident, as P.W-2. In the chief-examination, he stated that on 04.04.2014 at about 04.00 p.m. he was travelling from University and reached a place near Kunchanapalli village outskirts, and noticed the deceased, who is a student of their college was proceeding on a scooter towards college, and he was driving the scooter carefully on the extreme left side of the road, and while so, the driver of the truck auto bearing No. AP 07 TW 5921 drove the truck auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed the scooter on its back side, and due to that impact, the deceased fell down on the road, and at that time, the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 16 TW 3612 came in a rash and negligent manner from K.L. University college side and ran over the deceased, who fell down on the road, and duet to the same, the deceased sustained multiple injuries, and immediately, P.W-2 informed to 108 ambulance and they shifted the deceased to Manipal Hospital and where he was declared as dead by the hospital authorities. The appellant/Insurance Company cross-examined P.W-2, but nothing material was elicited establishing that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.

19. The evidence of P.W-2 would show that the driver of the 1st respondent was coming behind the scooty of the deceased, drove the truck auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the same and dashed the scooty on its back side, and due to that impact, the deceased fell down immediately from the scooty on the road, and the auto of the 3rd respondent was coming behind, due to sudden incident i.e., truck auto hitting the scooty from its back side, and as the deceased fell down immediately on the road, the auto which is close to these two vehicles, passed over the deceased, as the incident was occurred suddenly. Therefore, facts established from the evidence would suggest that had the driver of the truck auto was careful, he would be in a position to avoid the accident. Hence, the entire cause for the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the 1st respondent was only responsible for the accident, cannot be interfered. Hence, the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.

20. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the driver of the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license. Ex.B-2 shows that he was holding a valid driving license to drive a non transport vehicle of same class.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and others 2017 (8) SCC 590, [LQ/SC/2017/880] held that "driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement".

22. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident is devoid of any merit. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. Hence, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants, as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

23. POINT No. 2:

When coming to the evidence of P.W-1, corroborated by the evidence of P.W-2 and Ex.A-4 bunch of fee receipts issued by K.L. University for payment of fee for deceased, for studying I year B.Tech Course in the college, would establish that the deceased was studying I year B.Tech Course in K.L. University, and he was aged 20 years at the time of death.

24. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union 2011 ACJ 1702 (AP), followed by another Division Bench in the case of Setty Chandra Sekhar and another Vs. Mohd. Ghouse and another 2011 ACJ 2403 [LQ/APHC/2010/15] , held that the Tribunal can fix the notional income of B.Tech graduate at Rs. 12,000/-per month, and some percentage i.e., 10% per year can be deducted in respect of the students studying III year, II year or I year, as the case may be.

25. In that view of the matter, the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 12,000x70/100 = Rs. 8,400 per month. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 8,400 x 12 = Rs. 1,00,800/-. 50% of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case. The annual income would be Rs. 1,00,800/2 = Rs. 50,400/-. The multiplier applicable is '18' as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298 [LQ/SC/2009/869] , as the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of death. Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs. 50,400 x 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/-.

26. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, [LQ/SC/2017/1578] an addition of 40% on the established income should be awarded towards future prospects, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Thus, the claimants are entitled to future prospects on the established income of Rs. 9,07,200/-would be Rs. 9,07,200 x 40/100 = Rs. 3,62,880/-.

27. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of estate, total Rs. 30,000/-.

28. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2018 ACJ 2782 [LQ/SC/2018/1175] , the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/-each towards filial consortium, as the deceased died unmarried. Hence, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 80,000/-towards filial consortium.

29. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards transport expenses and Rs. 5,000/-towards damages to clothes and articles, total Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the compensation amount entitled by the claimants in all is Rs. 9,07,200 + 3,62,880 + 30,000 + 80,000 + 15,000 = Rs. 13,95,080/-only towards just compensation, instead of Rs. 18,36,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal.

30. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered.

31. POINT No. 3: To what relief

In the light of findings on points No. 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company partly, by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal as under:

32. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the order dated 06.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 328/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, holding that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 13,95,080/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs, Ninety Five Thousand, and Eighty only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, instead of Rs. 18,36,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

33. The appellant/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs. 13,95,080/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs, Ninety Five Thousand, and Eighty only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of judgment. In the event of the appellant/Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment.

34. On such deposit, the claimants No. 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,97,540/-(Rupees Six Lakhs, Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and forty only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 6,97,540/-(Rupees Six Lakhs, Ninety Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and forty only) each, along with accrued interest thereon.

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