HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.987 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is filed by the Insurance company against the award dated 08.12.2005 passed in O.P No.2508 of 2003 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants and the 6th respondent is the owner of the crime lorry and the 7th respondent is the driver of the lorry in the said O.P. . The facts relating to the case are that on 07.06.2002 at about 10.15 A.M. one K.Murali Krishna (hereinafter referred to as’ deceased’), who was working as a Manager in B.H.E.L., Hyderabad, along with his wife and children i.e., claimants 1 to 3 was traveling in their Maruti Car bearing No.A.P.31 H 3112 being driven by the deceased, from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on National High Way No.9 and when the Car reached Annasagaram village of Nandigama Mandal, a lorry bearing No.A.P.16 W 8121 driven by its driver came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti Car. As a result of which, the Maruti Car was completely damaged and the deceased died on the spot while claimants 1 to 3 sustained injuries. Consequently, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, laid a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.42,13,500/-. Respondents 6 and 7 herein, who are owner and driver of the offending lorry, remained ex parte. The appellants-Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing counter, inter alia, contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, but the copy of the Insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. Through Court, Ex.X1 was marked. Eventually, at the culmination of enquiry, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and then the Tribunal assessed the compensation and arrived at Rs.18,19,700/- and passed the award accordingly. Assailing the said award, the appellants-Insurance Company filed this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in applying ‘16’ multiplier instead of 12.79 for determining the loss of dependency. He further submits that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the award of the Claims Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. We have considered the respective contentions of the parties and perused the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal basing on the evidence available on record found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. To prove the accident, the 1st claimant, who is the injured and eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.1 and she has categorically stated the manner in which the accident occurred. The police, after investigation, filed Ex.A7-charge sheet holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question. The evidence of P.W.1 remained un- contradicted. In the light of Exs.A1 to A7, the finding of the Claims Tribunal in causing the culpability on the part of the driver of the lorry in question cannot be interfered with. Coming to the question of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was working as Manager in B.H.E.L, Hyderabad, and was drawing gross salary of Rs.35,128/- and net salary of Rs.14,141/- per month as per Ex.A8 salary certificate, as on the date of his death. Taking into consideration the net income of the deceased, his income can be safely fixed at Rs.14,141/- per month and from this amount if 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased could be arrived at Rs.9,428/- per month and the annual contribution of the deceased for the claimants is Rs.1,13,136/- (Rs.9,428/- X 12). As the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of his death as per Ex.A9 and Ex.X1, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’ and if the same is applied, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,10,176/- (Rs.1,13,136/- X 16). Apart from the said compensation, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant-wife and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Considering all these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly awarded a total sum of Rs.18,19,676/-, which was rounded off to Rs.18,19,700/- towards compensation with interest at 7 ½% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the appellants-Insurance Company. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the Claims Tribunal is quite legal and justified and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA __________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD 29.08.2011 Gsn