*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2815 of 2003 % Dated: 11-11-2010 # Chicharapu Bangaramma & others. … Appellants VERSUS $ Dokkadi Chinna & others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the appellants: Sri K.K. Kishore for Sri N. Siva Reddy ^ Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri G. Venkateswarlu for Sri P. Ravi Shankar Counsel for respondent No.3: None <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 2. 1994 (2) SCC 176 3. 1996 (4) SCC 362 4. 2005 (10) SCC 720 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2815 of 2003 Between: Chicharapu Bangaramma & others. ..... Appellants AND Dokkadi Chinna & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri K.K. Kishore for Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri G. Venkateswarlu for Sri P. Ravi Shankar Counsel for respondent No.3: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2815 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, “the Tribunal”) the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 1999 has filed this appeal. I have heard Sri K.K. Kishore representing Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Venkateswarlu representing Sri P. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Despite service of notice, no one entered appearance for respondent No.3. For the death of one Chakra Rao in a motor accident involving lorry bearing registration No. ATP 2323 belonging to respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, the appellants herein filed their claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,64,600/- after holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants urged two contentions, namely; that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was taken as 36 and that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] the relevant multiplier is 15 and that instead, the Tribunal has taken 14 as the multiplier. The learned counsel further submitted that in the same judgment i.e., Sarla Verma (1 supra) it was held that where the deceased left behind the dependents in excess of 6, deduction of 1/5th of income towards personal expenses of the deceased should be made and that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra), after considering the judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas[2], UP State Raod Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra[3] and New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Charlie[4], standardized the various parameters including the multiplier in assessing the loss of income. The Supreme Court held that if the age of the deceased was between 36 and 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is 15. Therefore, the deceased having been aged 36 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier should have been 15 and not 14, as applied by the Tribunal. Similarly, i n Sarla Verma (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that where the number of family members exceed 6, deduction of 1/5th of income towards personal expenses of the deceased should be made. In the instant case, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd. For the abovementioned reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified by directing that the compensation should be computed by taking 15 as the multiplier and deducting 1/5th instead of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Subject to the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.11.2010 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) [2] 1994 (2) SCC 176 [3] 1996 (4) SCC 362 [4] 2005 (10) SCC 720