IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.No. 3443 OF 2002 Between: Elukapati Daniel & 3-Ors. … Appellants V/s. Smt.C. Sandhya Rani & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Molugu Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. S.N. Padmini The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.No. 3443 OF 2002 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 29-7-2002 passed in OP.No. 2315 of 2000 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding compensation of Rs.2,02,000=00 as against the claim made for Rs.3,50,000=00 on account of the death of one Elukapati Danaiah in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05-7-2000 with a tanker bearing No. AP-31T-7779 at about 05:30 a.m. while the deceased along with Ankaiah, Subbaiah and Guruvaiah were proceeding on foot from Padmashali Colony and by the time when they reached Konark Steel Factory, the offending tanker coming from Hyderabad side came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed them from behind. The deceased Danaiah and Subbaiah died on the spot, while Ankaiah and Guruvaiah sustained grievous injuries and immediately all of them were shifted to Osmania General Hospital, and Ankaiah died on the same day while undergoing treatment. Police registered a case in Cr.No.69/2000. 2. Before the Claims Tribunal, the first respondent, owner of the tanker, remained exparte and the insurer contested the claim, filed counter, denied all the allegations and demanded the claimants to prove the accident and also avocation and income of the deceased. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : (1) Whether the accident took place on 05-7-2000 resulting the death of deceased due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker No.AP-31T-7779 ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom ? (3) To what relief ? 4. To substantiate their case, the claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked. 5. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,02,000=00 as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000=00 on account of the death of one Elukapati Danaiah in a motor vehicle accident. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of the appellants. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is of the year 2002. Hence, it is thought appropriate to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. The questions that arise in this appeal are that: (1) whether the Claims Tribunal committed error in considering the monthly income of the deceased between Rs.1500/ to Rs.2000/- and thereby fixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- out of which 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses? (2) Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier ‘16’ ? and (3) Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding rate of interest at 9% per annum ? 8. The facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 05-7-2000 at about 05:30 a.m., and the offending tanker bearing No.AP-31T-7779 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the deceased from behind while he was walking on the road along with others at Konark Steel Factory, Shamshabad, causing injuries to all of them. However, the deceased along with another died on the spot and another succumbed to injuries in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. 9. That the parents, sister and brother of the deceased preferred OP.No.2315 of 2000 before the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That the Claims Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 18 years as stated in the petition averments. However, the Claims Tribunal has taken the age of the mother into consideration for fixing the appropriate multiplier and fixed the multiplier ‘16’ to be appropriate, as the mother of the deceased was aged 35 years at the relevant point of time. That the Claims Tribunal has further taken into consideration the monthly earnings of the deceased between Rs.1500/- and Rs.2000/-. However, it fixed his annual loss of dependency at Rs.18000/- and out of which 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses, and thus, fixed Rs.12,000/- towards annual loss of dependency to the family of the deceased. 10. Even if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2000/- , his annual income would be Rs.24,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6 SCC-121 and 50% has to be deducted there from since he was a bachelor. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.1000 and annual income comes to Rs.12,000/- and the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’ for the age of the mother 35 years was applied and thus Rs.12,000 x 16 = 1,92,000=00. Thus, either way, the annual loss of dependency either taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- or at Rs.24,000/- after permissible deductions, comes to Rs.12,000/-. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, cannot be found fault with its order since as per the decision referred hereinabove only Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses can be awarded. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the award of the Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity except awarding interest @ 9% per annum. In view of the decision referred to supra, according to which, the interest @ 6% per annum could be awarded to the appellants, Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal at 9% per annum has got to be reduced to 6% p.a. 12. With the above modification as to the rate of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of without interfering with the findings of the Claims Tribunal in respect of awarding total compensation by taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased and by applying the appropriate multiplier 16. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO, NALLA. 22-07-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3443 OF 2002 Circulation No. 64 Date:22-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L