THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.46 of 2008 and CMA No.141 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: CMA No.46 of 2008 is filed by the claimants and CMA No.141 of 2008 is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 13-07-2007 passed in O.P.No.3096 of 2005. Since both the appeals are directed against the same award and the parties are same, they are disposed of by common judgment. Facts in CMA No.46 of 2008 are adverted to. 2. The claimants/appellants herein filed the said OP seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- due to the death of one Mr. Khaja Pasha on 29-10-2005 involving tempo van bearing No. AP10 U 8029 in the accident. 3. The facts stated are:- on the fateful day the deceased was driving motor cycle along with the pillion rider, at that time the tempo van in question driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came in the opposite direction, hit the motor cycle, as a result of which, the pillion rider sustained injuries and the deceased also sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries while taking to the hospital. It was stated that the deceased was aged 26 years as on date of the accident and was working as giant wheel operator in the exhibition and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, on the question of culpability in causing the accident held that both the drivers of the vehicles in question are equally responsible for the accident, but since the application was filed under Section 163 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed that the claimants were not required to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Coming to the question of award of compensation, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at 26 years, took the income at Rs.3,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.36,000/- and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, which comes to Rs.24,000/- and after adopting multiplier of ‘18’ which comes to (Rs.24,000/- x 18 )= Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.4,54,000/-. 4. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondents-insurance company. There is no dispute as to the nature of the accident. The only question is as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] for the age group of persons 26-30 years, the relevant multiplier is ‘17’ but, the Tribunal has taken ‘18’ multiplier. If ‘17’ multiplier is adopted by taking the income of the deceased by Rs.3,500/- per month, having regard to the fact that the deceased was 26 years, annually it comes to (Rs.3,500/- x 12) = Rs.42,000/-. Since the claimants are four in number, 1/4th has to be deducted instead of 1/3rd which comes to Rs.31,500/- and by adopting ‘17’ multiplier, compensation comes to Rs.5,35,500/-. In addition to this, the claimant-wife is also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, and other claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.5,57,500/-. 5. The claimants in all are entitled to Rs.5,57,500/-. Since the claim of the claimants was only for Rs.5,00,000/-, the claimants shall have to pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.57,500/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is reduce to 6.5% per annum. In the result, the appeal CMA 46 of 2008 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the appeal CMA 141 of 2008 filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 24-2-2011 Nrg THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.46 of 2008 and CMA No.141 of 2008 24-2-2011 NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129