THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.NO. 949 OF 2002 Date of disposal: 1.12.2009 Between: Katakam Sanjeeva Rao and others …Appellants And R. Chendra Sekhar and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.NO. 949 OF 2002 ORDER: 1. This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Katakam Lalitha Sivajothi, the wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant Nos. 2 and 3, met with a fatal accident on 4.7.1988 while she was traveling in an RTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-3805 from Guntur to Proddutur and when it reached near Venkatapuram village, Medarametla Mandal, Prakasam district, the said bus and a lorry bearing No. AP-30-T-1212 collided with each other. It is alleged by the claimants that the said accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased who ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Police registered a case in Cr.No. 35 of 1998 and later the claimants filed a claim petition. The allegations in the claim petition were that the deceased, apart from being a house wife, was also doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Respondent No.1 is the owner of offending lorry and respondent No.2 is its insurer and respondent No.3-APRTC is the owner of the offending bus. 3. The Tribunal found on issue No.1 that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and on issue No.2 with respect to compensation, the Tribunal has accepted the age of deceased as 32 years according to post mortem report and assessed the loss of dependency basing upon the income of her husband i.e., P.W.2. The income of her husband was taken notionally at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- being it’s one third income was taken to be loss of dependency. The loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.85,000/- by applying a multiplier of ‘17’ and keeping in view the age of deceased as 32 years. The Tribunal also added conventional sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards mental pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, aggregating to Rs.97,000/- and granted interest of 9% P.A. thereon. 4. In the present appeal by the claimants, it is contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal, so far as the deceased is concerned, is not based on any rational and in this connection, reliance is placed upon on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others [1] and particularly on paragraph 10 thereof. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in case of house wives, the Supreme Court has evolved a criteria and standardized the income at Rs.36,000/- per annum of those who were active in life upto 59 years and the said income gradually gets reduced with respect to elderly ladies and in the present case the Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased as 32 years based upon the post mortem report and the loss of dependency of deceased would be Rs.36,000/- per annum, if the above criteria is adopted. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3- APSRTC, however, submits that the Tribunal below committed an error in applying the multiplier basing upon the age of deceased and he has relied upon paragraph 2 of the decision cited above (1st supra) for the proposition that for the purpose of applying appropriate multiplier what is relevant is the age of deceased or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher. He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ramesh Singh and another Vs. Satbir Singh and another [2], which, in turn, was based upon its earlier decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie [3] and in the aforesaid decision also the age of the parents was held to be relevant factor in case of death of a young person of 22 years and a multiplier selected was relevant to the age of father who was one of the claimants. The learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in granting compensation towards mental pain and suffering etc. which is not permissible in case of this nature. 6. In the present case the claimants are the husband of the deceased and minor children. The husband is shown as 35 years of age on the date of accident, while the deceased was 32 years of age. It is well settled from the decisions, referred to above, that the age of the claimants or age of the deceased, whichever is higher, has to be adopted for selecting appropriate multiplier. In a decision reported in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [4], the Supreme Court in paragraph-42 standardized the appropriate multiplier, keeping in view its earlier decisions as well as second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the said decision, the appropriate multiplier in the present case, therefore, would be ‘16’ so far as the age group of 31 to 35 years are concerned and applying the said criteria and selecting the appropriate multiplier based upon the age of the claimant i.e., husband of the deceased and taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/-, the compensation would work out to Rs.36,000x16=Rs.5,76,000/-. To this amount, the conventional amounts deserve to be added. However, the compensation claimed in this case being only Rs.2.00 lakhs, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal below warrants appropriate enhancement and the compensation amount deserves to be granted at Rs.2.00 lakhs. 7. The Tribunal below, having found that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of both APSRTC bus as well as lorry, has apportioned the compensation amount to be paid by the respondents in the proportion of 50:50 each. The present enhancement shall also stand accordingly apportioned between the said respondents in the proportion of 50:50 each. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry an interest of 7.5% P.A. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. No orders as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 1.12.2009 KR [1] (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 197 [2] 2008) (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 310 (SC) [3] 2005 (3) SCJ 296 [4] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121