THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3756 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 28.08.2002 in O.P.No.632 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, at Warangal whereby and whereunder the claim petition was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,40,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. None appears for the appellants. Learned standing counsel for the second respondent –insurance company is present and informed the court that the only question so far as insurance company is concerned inter alia is that the appeal against respondent No.1- owner has been dismissed for default and no steps have been taken to get the said dismissal order set-aside and therefore the appeal against the second respondent-insurance company has got to be dismissed. 3. Since no appeal is field by the insurance company, it is prevented from taking new pleas in this appeal. 4. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that the dismissal of matter at the appellate stage against the owner of the accident vehicle does not necessarily absolved the insurer from its liability and they relied on a decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others,[1] wherein it was held as under: “ If the Claims Tribunal records a finding that the accident had taken place due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle and if such finding is not challenged either by the insurance company or by the owner of the motor vehicle, the question that arises in appeal filed against the orders of the Tribunal by the claimants is only with regard to the determination of just, fair and reasonable quantum of compensation and therefore, there cannot be any bar to decide the quantum of compensation against the Insurance Company even in the absence of owner of the vehicle to the extent of the statutory liability of the Insurance. But the quantum of compensation cannot be decided over and above the statutory liability of the Insurance Company in the absence of the owners, but the question of the statutory liability of the Insurance Company survives for consideration at the appellate stage.” 5. So far as the enhancement of the quantum of compensation as claimed by the appellants-claimants is concerned, as per Ex.A.4 - P.M. report, the deceased was aged about 50 years by the date of his death in the accident and since he was stated to be a labourer, the lower Tribunal fixed his daily earnings at Rs.75/- and fixed his monthly earnings at Rs.1500/- excluding 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal expenditure. As such, the lower Tribunal arrived at Rs.1,000/- as his monthly earnings by which he was supporting his family members. As he was aged 50 years by the time of his death, multiplier ‘11’ was considered to be appropriate. Further, this court is of the view that the lower Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was earning Rs.75/- per day for 30 days instead of 20 days. After deducting 1/3rd therefrom, the deceased would have contributed Rs.1500/- per month and annually it comes to Rs.18,000/- towards supporting his family members. Thus, the lower Tribunal could have applied multiplier ‘11’ as the deceased was aged 50 years. The annual loss of dependency of the appellants could have been arrived at Rs.1,98,000/- to which the appellants-claimants are entitled to. That in addition thereto, the first appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and the appellants- claimants are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighteen thousand) only. 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be held that the appellants-claimants are entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.2,18,000/-. However, the lower Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is liable to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 6% per annum in view of the decision reported in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of India,[2] 7. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 22-07-2010 Stp [1] 2001 (1) ALT 495 (DB) [2] 2009 (6) SCC 121