IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3118 of 2003 Between: Raavi Sarala ..... Appellants And M. Anjaneyulu and others …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.984 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 10-12-2002. Raavi Devi Reddy aged 53 years and working as Village Administrative Officer was returning to his native village on his Java motorcycle when auto trolley No.AP-24-T-8884 dashed against the motorcycle near Munukuntla village. The auto trolley was driven rashly and negligently in high speed and the accident resulted in the death of Raavi Devi Reddy, the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3. The claimants, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto trolley. After the death of the owner of the vehicle during the pendency of the claim, his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. While respondents 3 and 4 put the claimants to strict proof and relied on the insurance of the vehicle, the insurer also put the claimants to strict proof, while claiming the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the eye-witness account of PW.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto leading to the accident. Accepting the income of Rs.1380/- per month as Village Administrative Officer as certified in Exs.A.5 and A.6, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and fixed the contribution to the family at Rs.920/- per month. It applied a multiplier of 5 for the age of 53 years, and also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife apart from Rs.55,200/- towards loss of dependency. The total compensation of Rs.80,200/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants are before this Court contending that the income ought to have been taken into account at Rs.3,000/- per month from agriculture, 15 should have been applied as multiplier and Rs.30,000/- each should have been granted towards non- pecuniary damages and loss of consortium with interest at 12% p.a. Therefore, they claimed the balance of compensation of Rs.89,800/-. Heard Sri G.V. Gangadhar, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel representing Sri Haribabu Manne, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer and none entered appearance for the first respondent. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the auto driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving have become final in the absence of any challenge and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent or its insurance with the 2nd respondent to the claim are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimants is, thus, not in doubt. Coming to the quantum of such compensation, the evidence of PW.1 or PW.2 made no reference to the deceased cultivating any lands of his own or on lease and the alleged agricultural activity fetching an income of Rs.3,000/- per month for the deceased as per the claim petition was not even repeated by PWs.1 and 2 nor was it in evidence in any of Exs.A.1 to A.11. The Tribunal accepted the salary certificates produced by the claimants as they are, for assessment of the compensation and deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is as per the accepted norms. The Tribunal, apart from awarding Rs.25,000/- under other heads, appeared to have been conservative only in applying the multiplier at 5. As per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] for a person aged 53 years, the appropriate multiplier would be “11” and if such multiplier were to be applied, the claimants will be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.66,240/- under that head. Though in respect of other damages, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- more than fixed by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (stated supra), it may not be in the interests of justice to interfere with that amount at this distance of time. In respect of the enhanced compensation, in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid by the respondents, the same can be reasonably limited to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs of course shall follow suit. Accordingly, the award dated 10-12-2002 in O.P.No.984 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.66,240/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298