HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4758 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 577 of 2001 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the death of one Yellamma in a motor accident that occurred on 26.2.2001 at about 7.00 pm when the deceased was traveling in an auto bearing No. AP 9U 9347 from Hyderabad to Mankhal and when the auto reached near Annapurna Poultry from, Thukkaguda, a lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5981 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Auto and due to which the deceased sustained stomach injuries and she succumbed to injuries on 27.2.2001. First respondent being owner of the lorry bearing No. AP28T 5981 remained ex parte and the second respondent being insurer of the accident vehicle – National Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5981 belonging to the first respondent. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs A1 to A5 and also Ex. B1, copy of insurance policy, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erroneously awarded a meager sum Rs. 1,95,000/- towards compensation and also erroneously taken the notional income as 15,000/- without applying the multiplier method. He also contended that the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from various infirmities and the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5981 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on 27.2.2001. PW-2 is an eye witness and while he was returning after completion of work to his house on his scooter and when he reached near Sardarnagr Gate near Annapurna Poultry Forum ahead of him one Auto bearing No. AP 9U 9341 passing towards Mankhal side and at around 7.00 pm one lorry bearing No. AP28T 5981 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said auto, due to which the travelers in the auto sustained blood injuries. The contents of Exs A1 and A2 FIR and Charge Sheet disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5981. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the deceased as 40 years and took the annual income of the deceased as 18,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses, her contribution to the family comes to Rs. 12,000/- per annum and the appropriate multiplier for the age of 40 years is 15, if applied the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. In addition to that Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards love and affection totaling to Rs. 1,95,000/-. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation taking into consideration of all the factual evidence on record. 6. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA