IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. TUESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3 5 2 5 OF 1999 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Narsaraopet & Anr. …. Petitioner V/s. Anaparthi Gangamma, w/o Shanta Rao, @ Kantha Rao, aged about 28 years, r/o Bhimavaram, Sathenapalli Mandal, Guntur district & 3-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners … Sri T. Ramulu Counsel for the Respondents … Sri M.K. Jaleel THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CMA.NO. 3 5 2 5 OF 1999 J U D G M E N T : 1. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants and none appeared for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-4- 1996 in WC.No.18 of 1994 on the file of the Authority under Workmen’s Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. 3. The first respondent filed a claim application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour seeking compensation of Rs.78,824=00 on account of death of her deceased husband, Anaparthi Santha Rao @ Kantha Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05-10-1993. 4. According to the claimant, her husband was working as driver in the lorry AEK-3976 belonging to the fourth respondent herein and that as usual he was driving the lorry with the load of maize from Jammikunta to Kakinada. On 06- 10-1993 at Kokkireni Donka of Thirumalayapalem Mandal, another lorry bearing No.ADM-7767 driven in a rash and negligent manner by the deceased, dashed against the lorry, as a result of which, the drivers of both the lorries died and a case was registered in Cr.No.79/93 of Thirumalayapalem Police Station. The claimant further pleaded that the deceased was under the employment of fourth respondent herein and died during the course of such employment. 5. The appellant-insured and fourth respondent-owner of the lorry filed counters opposing the liability to pay compensation. 6. During the enquiry, the claimant was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the insurer or insured. 7. On consideration of evidence available on rcord, the learned Deputy Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act has awarded Rs.85,000=00. 8. The learned standing counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Deputy Commissioner erred in taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 27 yeas and applying the multiplier 213.57 though according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 33 years. It is to be noted that as per the inquest report and postmortem examination report the age of the deceased is 27 years and the Tribunal has taken the same into consideration for the purpose of estimating the loss of dependency. In the light of the inquest report Ex.A3 and postmortem examination report Ex.A2 showing that the deceased was 27 years, the Tribunal has rightly taken the same into consideration. However, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 213.57 and arrived at a sum of Rs.85,428=00 as compensation and awarded the entire amount, when the claimant in his application claimed Rs.78,824=00. It is, therefore, just and appropriate to confine the amount of compensation to Rs.78,824=00 as claimed. 9. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in-part holding that claimant is entitled for Rs.78,824=00 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the said amount fell due. 10. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The appellant insurer is entitled for refund of the balance amount in deposit, if any. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY. 03-11-2009 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CMA.No. 3 5 2 5 OF 1999 COMPUTER NO. 43 03-11-2009 Court Master: I s L