THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1530 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 06.08.2002, passed in O.P.No.933 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). On 23.05.1999, the deceased, on completion of his escort duty as S.I. of Police (Armed Police), was passing towards a fruit shop at Collectorate Chowk at Adilabad in the road margin, a lorry bearing RC No.PY-01-F-700 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, resulting in fatal and grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. While he was being shifted to Nagpur, after providing first aid at Government Hospital at Adilabad, he succumbed to injuries. It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month and contributing entire amount for the welfare of the family. Hence, the present O.P., is filed by the appellants, who were deprived of his earnings, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance company filed counter contending that the compensation claimed is high and excessive. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- to the appellants-claimants. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in granting a meager amount of compensation, in spite of the fact that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,400/- per month as S.I. of Police. Heard the learned counsel. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Armed Reserve and was aged 55 years. Ex.A9, Salary Certificate, shows that the deceased was drawing more than Rs.6,400/- per month towards his salary. Since there are four claimants, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], 1/4th has to be deducted therefrom towards his personal and living expenses. If that is deducted, his monthly contribution to the family would come to Rs.4,800/- p.m., and Rs.57,600/- p.a. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased as per Sarala Verma case (1 supra), is ‘11’. Hence, the loss of dependency for the appellants would come to Rs.6,33,600/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the first appellant, being wife of the deceased, towards loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the appellants towards loss of estate. In total, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,53,600/-, which is more than the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by them. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/-, the claimants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount as per the judgment of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh[2]. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part. No costs ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] 2003(1) ALD-1 (SC)