HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 2246 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award made by the District Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram in MOP No. 185 of 1999 dated 21.6.2001, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- together with interest as against which the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 76,240/- with interest at 9% per annum. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.1.1999 at about 9 PM while the deceased Satyanarayna returning on his bicycle from left side of the road and when he reached Viswanadhapuam Junction, the driver of the jeep bearing No. MP 23 G 623 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Immediately the dead body was taken to the Primary Health Center, Salur for conducting Postmortem Examination. The police registered a case in Crime No. 11 of 1999 under Section 304 A IPC against the first respondent. As the deceased was only earning person in the family, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of Jeep bearing No. MP23 G 623 respectively, originally appeared through advocate but they did not file any counter. Respondent No. 3 –Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations regarding rash and negligent driving, income of the deceased and quantum of compensation. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing No. MP 23/G 623 by its driver, who is the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from any of the respondents; if so to what extent? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the appellants PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the contesting respondents no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record with regard to Issue No. 1, in the absence of any evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver. With regard to issue No. 2, the Tribunal accepted that the deceased was working in the Jute Mill and earning Rs. 50/- per day and for 25 days, the amount comes to Rs. 1,250/- as his income and fixed the dependency at Rs. 600/- per month as he has to maintain his parents and also sisters who are members till they are married or they attain majority. The Tribunal applied the appropriate multiplier of 10.45 for the age of 45 and calculated the annual dependency at Rs. 7,200/- ( Rs. 600x12) multiplying with 10.45, it comes to Rs. 75,240/- (7,200 x10.45). The Tribunal granted Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses and thus total amount comes to Rs. 76,240/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased is the sole breadwinner of the family and he was spending all his earnings to his family and there is no basis to fix Rs. 600/- per month as dependency. He also contended that the Tribunal below ought to have seen that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is quite reasonable and it ought to have been seen that the earnings of the deceased was Rs. 50/- per day and Rs. 1500/- per month and not Rs. 1250 only and the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier also. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and the deceased is the sole bread winner of the family. It is also no doubt true that Ex. A2 Postmortem report shows that the age of the deceased is 20 years and the deceased was working in Jute Mill and earning Rs. 50/- per day. Hence, in my view, it would be just and proper that multiplier of 14 is proper multiplier and as far as his earnings are concerned, Rs. 50/- per day would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1500/- per month (Rs. 50 x 30) and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the net income comes to Rs. 1000 per month ( 1500 x 1/3rd ) and per annum it comes to Rs. 12,000/- ( Rs.1000x 12). In the absence of age of the deceased, age of the parents of the deceased can be taken into consideration. Here in this case the age of the parents of the deceased viz., age of the father is father 50 and the age of the mother is 45 respectively. Taking into consideration of the age of mother of the deceased as 45, the correct multiplier would be 14 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[1]. Thus the net income comes to Rs. 1,75,000/- (12000x14) and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium totaling Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 1,75,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-). The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the interest at 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal is on high side. Hence, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 01.07.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129