HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1504 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 25.10.2002 in O.P.No.444 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, granting compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of the death of Gurram Bhaskar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.2.1999. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.2.1999 at about 11.30 a.m Gurram Bhaskar , aged 25 years, was going on scooter bearing No. AP-24-7240 along with two others to Ellanki village and when it reached the bus stage of Nelapatla, a lorry bearing No. AP-28-T-4910 came from Choutuppal side and due to rash and negligent driving by its driver hit the scooter and the scooter dragged to some distance resulting in his death. The deceased was a weaver in silk fabrick and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. The wife and children of the deceased Gurram Bhaskar filed the above OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The first respondent – owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent – insurer filed counter disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also the manner of accident. Further, the insurer had also taken the plea that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-28- T-4910. On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of respondents none were examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased (Gurram Bhaskar) died in the Motor Vehicle Accident, and if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-28-T-4910? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid? 3. To what relief? Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the income of the deceased is wrongly estimated and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the loss of estate, loss of future prospects, amenities and loss of consortium. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation from the date of accident with interest at 12% per annum. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance company disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also the manner of accident and submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. PW-1 who is wife of the deceased, deposed that she learnt that when the scooter of her husband reached near Nellapatla bus stage, a lorry, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came and struck behind the scooter and as a result of which, her husband who was pillion rider died instantaneously on the spot. PW-2 is the pillion rider sustained injuries in the accident and he asserted in his evidence that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. Having regard to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, no rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. As seen from the claim petition that the deceased was aged 25 years and his profession is weaving and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month . There is no reason to disbelieve that the profession of the deceased is weaving as per Ex. A-5 salary certificate issued by Chairman, HWCSES, Nellapatla, Choutuppal. Hence, I am inclined to fix the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/-. Thus the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs. 30,000/- out of which one third has to be deducted towards personal living expenses. Therefore, the actual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Ex. A-2 post mortem certificate discloses that the age of the deceased is 25 years at the time of accident and there is no dispute about the same. The multiplier appropriate to 25 years age of the deceased is 18. Thus the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 20,000x18). Since the claimants are wife and children, I am inclined to grant Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate following the judgment of the Supreme Court in KERALA STAE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS[1]. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- (Three Lakhs Eighty Thousand Rupees Only). As far as the rate of interest is concerned, counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment is high and requested to reduce the same. I see some force in his contention. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 15.07.2010 KA [1] (1994) 2 SCC 176