THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1399 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. The appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the order in O.P.No.532 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, where- under consequent on the death of the deceased Narsimha Reddy a claim for compensation was made and the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,31,392/-. 3. The main contention of the appellant herein is that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is not proper. The deceased was said to be Head Constable relying on Ex.A.4 Salary Certificate, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.5,202/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure, the contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.3,468/- and the deceased being aged about 42 years a multiplier ‘12’ was applied. After applying the above multiplier the lower Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency and also compensation towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and accordingly granted a sum of Rs.5,31,392/-. 4. As can be seen from the order of the lower Tribunal, the liability of insurance company is also accepted and passed the award. The grounds of appeal shows that the compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal is excessive. Evidently, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the salary of the deceased, which he was drawing on the date of incident and if the present law is to be applied more benefits will be accrued to the claimant and the multiplier that has to be applied will also be more. Therefore, keeping in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], it cannot be said that the compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal is excessive. In fact, against the common judgment, which is O.P.No.70 of 2000, C.M.A.No.4036 of 2004 was filed by the insurance company and the method of assessment of the compensation of similar nature was accepted by this court and the said appeal was dismissed. Therefore, in this appeal also I do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the lower Tribunal. 5. It was pleaded by the counsel for the appellant that an amount, which was paid under no fault liability, was not given credit and it shall be given credit in the lower Tribunal from the amount of compensation granted under 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 15.07.2011 INL [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129