JUDGMENT : V. SUJATHA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.26,22,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants, this instant appeal is preferred by the Insurance company (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal). 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the Ch.Prakash (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.06.2012. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. 4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 09.06.2012, the deceased Ch.Prakash along with his friends viz. P.Pradeep Kumar, K.Tirumalesh, Sriramula Ramesh left for Mumbai from Hyderabad in a vehicle AP 09 BX 6334 driven by Syed Abdullah. On 10.06.2012 during return journey to Hyderabad, when the car reached Bombay Dabha at Yavali village on Mohal Pune Road, the driver of the car Abdullah tried to overtake another vehicle and lost control of the car, went on the wrong side of the road and colluded with a lorry bearing No.TN 52A 7789 coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple injuries and he was admitted in Shriram C.S.M. General Hospital, Sholapur initially and treated there upto 12.06.2012. Thereafter, he was shifted to Prime Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and treated there upto 15.08.2012, and also undergone number of surgeries and spent about Rs.15,00,000/- for his treatment. On 15.08.2012 he was discharged from Prime Hospital, Hyderabad and taken to Tiruvuru, where he was treated by local doctors. Subsequently, his condition was deteriorated and again he was admitted in Super Speciality Hospital, Vijayawada on 24.09.2012, where he was treated upto 03.10.2012 and the petitioners incurred huge expenditure towards his treatment. The deceased died on 06.10.2012 in Tiruvuru due to the injuries sustained by him. The driver of the crime vehicle died on the spot. The petitioners suffered lot of pain and mental agony due to the death of their son. He completed his B.Tech., course in distinction, would have secured a job. The deceased died on 06.10.2012 in Tiruvuru due to the injuries sustained by him. The driver of the crime vehicle died on the spot. The petitioners suffered lot of pain and mental agony due to the death of their son. He completed his B.Tech., course in distinction, would have secured a job. The petitioners lost their support. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 09 BX 6334, respondent No.2 is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2 – Insurance company filed a counter by denying the claim of the claimants and contended that there is no rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in resulting the accident. The petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of opposite vehicle who drove the vehicle without valid driving licence and badge. The insurance company of crime vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation, but the owner, driver and insurer of the opposite vehicle bearing No.TN 52A 7789 are alone liable to pay compensation. The deceased was a spinster and he was not an earning member at the time of accident. The claim of compensation is highly excessive and requested to dismiss the petition. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the deceased Chithaluri Prakash died in the accident on 10.06.2012 near Ghighvi Village, Ghighvi Mahal Taluq, in front of Bombay Dhaba at Avain on Mohal PUne Highway due to rash and negligent driving of Crime vehicle Car bearing No.AP 09 BX 6334? (2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed for? If so, to what amount and from whom? (4) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and the doctors who treated the deceased were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 9. (4) To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and the doctors who treated the deceased were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 9. Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing No.AP 09 BX 6334. 10. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were also answered in favour of the petitioners. The Tribunal, in the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the deceased, has taken the income of the deceased as 300/- per day i.e. Rs.9,000/- (Rs.300 X 30) per month and after deducting 1/3 rd towards his personal expenses, his monthly income was assessed at Rs.6,000/-, therefore, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6000 X 12). Further, considering the age of the deceased as 21 as on the date of accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier „18? and awarded Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.72,000 X 18). Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,91,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all Tribunal awarded Rs.26,22,000/-. 11. Aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal is filed by respondent No.2 – insurance company contending that the deceased has not died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident as he died after 4 months of the accident. Further, no postmortem certificate was filed to establish the exact cause of death. The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd towards his personal expenses, instead of deducting 1/2 towards his personal expenses as the deceased is unmarried person. It is further contended that the accident was occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of the lorry and car, but the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry were not made as proper and necessary parties to the lis. The Tribunal erred in granting excess compensation, as such requested this Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. The Tribunal erred in granting excess compensation, as such requested this Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects. As the deceased died at the age of 21 years, the claimants are entitled for 25% of the notional income towards future prospects and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 13. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.26,22,000/- is on reasonable basis? 14. I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 in support of the petition. Ex.A.1 is the copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 copy of accident report, would go to show that the deceased met with the accident on 10.06.2012 near Bombay Dabha at Yavali Village on Mohal Pune Raod, and sustained multiple injuries, and took treatment in various hospitals and ultimately succumbed to injuries. On perusal of Ex.A.1 - copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 – copy of charge sheet, and Ex.A.3 – copy of accident report would prove that the crime vehicle involved in the accident is the car bearing No.AP 09 BX 6334 driven by another deceased Syed Abdullah, who caused the accident due to his negligent driving by hitting the opposite vehicle. 15. Further, the appellant herein – insurance company has not filed any proof to establish that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 16. In Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 and Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21172 of 2021), the Hon?ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of contributory negligence held as follows: “The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged.” 17. As per the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. But in the present case, nothing on record indicates that the lorry was being driven at an excessively high speed or that the driver of the same failed to follow the traffic rules and contributed to the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident was occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN 52A 7789. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the death of the deceased was not the result of the accident. As per the material on record, as a result of the accident, the deceased sustained severe multiple injuries and he was admitted in Shriram C.S.M.General Hospital, Sholapur initially and was treated there upto 12.06.2012. Thereafter, he was shifted to Prime Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and treated there upto 15.08.2012, and also underwent 5 surgeries to brain and spine and spent about Rs.15,00,000/- for his treatment. On 15.08.2012 he was discharged from Prime Hospital, Hyderabad and taken to Tiruvuru, where he was treated by local doctors. Subsequently, his condition was deteriorated and again he was admitted in Super Speciality Hospital, Vijayawada on 24.09.2012, where he was treated upto 03.10.2012 and the petitioners incurred huge expenditure towards his treatment. The deceased died on 06.10.2012 in Tiruvuru. P.W.2 – Dr.B.S.V.Raju, who treated the deceased, deposed that the deceased underwent 5 surgeries for brain and spine. P.W.3 – Dr.G.Ramana Reddy, Associate Professor of Neurology, deposed that the patient was in ICU in his hospital, but did not recover from his traumatic brain injury. From the evidence of Doctors – P.Ws.2 and 3, it can be understood that the deceased was admitted in different hospitals for the same treatment on account of multiple injuries sustained by him in the accident, and succumbed to injuries. If the death is a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, even if it occurs after a prolonged period or due to medical complications, the connection with the accident remains intact. If the death is a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, even if it occurs after a prolonged period or due to medical complications, the connection with the accident remains intact. Merely because the deceased died a few months after the accident, it cannot be said that the death was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident as he was continuously under treatment, for the injuries sustained by him, from the date of accident till his death. From the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and as the 5 surgeries were conducted for his brain and spine, it can be said that there is nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased. In such cases, the Court should also weigh the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, which resulted in his death while undergoing continuous treatment. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company did not file any material to substantiate his contention that the death has not occurred due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. 19. Admittedly, the deceased died at the age of 21 years and at the time of accident he was unmarried. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd amount towards his personal expenses. But, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 if the deceased is bachelor, normally, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further, as the deceased died at the age of 21 years, it is permissible to add 25% of his notional income towards future prospects. 20. In the present case, as the deceased died at the age of 21 years, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal below has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.300/- per day taking into consideration minimum daily wage principle. Further, as the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 21 years, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as „18? in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. (referred supra). 21. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9000/- per month (Rs.300 X 30). in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. (referred supra). 21. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9000/- per month (Rs.300 X 30). Considering the age of deceased as 21 years, additional 25% (Rs.9000 x 25% = 2,250/-) of the notional income would be added towards his future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,250/- (Rs.9000 + 2250), out of which, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, then the actual annual income would come to Rs.67,500/- (Rs.5,625/- X 12), after applying multiplier "18" it would come to Rs.12,15,000/- [Rs.67,500/- X 18]. Hence, the award of amount of Rs.12,96,000/- towards loss of dependency is reduced to Rs.12,15,000/-. 22. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.12,91,000/- towards medical expenses relying on Exs.A.7, A.8 and A.9 medical bills, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which need not be interfered with by this Court. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,41,000/- towards compensation. 23. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts deducted by this Court from the compensation earlier granted, are as follows: S. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now deducted from the compensation 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.12,96,000/- Rs.81,000/- 2. For Mental Agony 25,000/- ------ 3. Funeral expenses 10,000/- ----- 4. Medical Expenditure 12,91,000/- ------ Total Rs.26,22,000/- Rs.81,000/- Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.26,22,000/- Amount of compensation now deducted Rs.81,000/- Amount of compensation now awarded Rs.25,41,000/- 24. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.25,41,000/- from Rs.26,22,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.