IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2049 OF 2003 Between : M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., .... APPELLANT A N D Smt Gopu Mallakka and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2049 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the Order and decree in O.P.No.26 of 1998 dated 06.07.2000, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereby a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- was awarded to the claimant as against her claim of Rs.4,50,000/-. 2. Appellant, which is insurer of the lorry involved in the accident, is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is claimant i.e., wife of the deceased, respondent No.2 is owner of the lorry and respondent No.3, who is mother of the deceased, is respondent No.3 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 17-02-1997 at about 5.15 P.M., while the deceased was proceeding on the Moped bearing registration No.AP-1-A-1521 from his Village Chakapalli, the lorry bearing No.AP-1-T-9248 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Moped, due to which the deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. The Police Kasipet Police Station, registered a case against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.6 of 1997 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, investigated into and filed charge sheet. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3, who are owner of the lorry and mother of the deceased respectively, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the deceased Viz. Gopu Narayana died in an accident occurred on 17.02.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-1-T-9248 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To substantiate her case, claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondent No.2, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal taking the average income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, as per Ex.A-6 and treating him as aged 50 years as per Exs.A-1, A-3 and A-5 and applying multiplier ‘13’, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,25,500/- to the claimant and respondent No.3, who are wife and mother of the deceased respectively apportioning the compensation between them. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation, insurance company filed this appeal. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, appellant, is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier ‘13’ and thus income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant, respondent No.1, submits that multiplier ‘13’ is applicable for the age group of the deceased as per the existing law and in fact the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less and that the Tribunal has committed error in not adding anything towards enhancement of future emoluments and it ought to have added at least 1/4th of the amount, out of the total income towards the same. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is excessive? 12. There is no dispute that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and he was aged about 50 years and for that age group at least multiplier ‘12’ is applicable. As per the latest pronouncements of Supreme Court, 1/4th of the amount, out of the total income of the deceased, has to be added to his income towards future enhancement in his earnings. Thus, if 1/4th of the amount is added towards enhancement in future earning, claimant would be entitled to more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. But, this appeal is filed on the basis of the law that existed as on the date of filing of the same. However, subsequently, law is changed in view of the latest Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above, there are no merits in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. However, as per the latest pronouncements, rate of interest can be reduced to 7.5% per annum from 12% and it is accordingly fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2010. YVL