HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.2477 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.211 of 2006. The respondents 1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased- Tegalapalle Eswara Reddy. They filed the above O.P., alleging that on 26.2.2006 at about 12.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle in order to go to his house situated at Padakandla Village on completion of his agricultural work and when he reached near Venkateswara Swamy temple, a tractor trailor bearing No. AP 21 W 3640/3762 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Allagadda. However, the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The respondents 1 to 3, who are wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date of the incident and was working as an agriculturist. He was earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through cultivation. Besides this, the deceased was also maintaining she buffaloes and was earning about Rs. 36,000/- per annum by selling the milk. The 4th respondent, the owner of the tractor trailer remained ex- parte. While opposing the claim petition, the appellant filed its counter. It denied the plea of the respondents-claimants that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer. It also denied the age and avocation of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident occurred is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor/trailer bearing No. AP 21 W- 3640/3762 resulting death of the deceased Tegalapalle Eswara Reddy ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents-claimants, the 1st respondent got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the eye witness as P.W.2. Exs. A1 to A6 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the appellant-insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1, copy of the insurance policy was marked with consent. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she deposed that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 26.2.2006. She further stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of the accident and was earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- by cultivating the lands. P.W.2,who is the eye witness to the incident has deposed in his evidence that on the date of the accident while he was proceeding on his motor cycle, he witnessed the said incident. He also deposed about presenting the complaint under Ex.A1 and the registration of the case as Crime No. 22 of 2006. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer belonging to the 4th respondent and it accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 3,18,000/- as compensation to the respondents –claimants together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal. Sri S.Agasthya Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the annual contribution of the deceased at Rs. 42,000/-. He further contended that the Tribunal also did not apply proper multiplier. He further contended that the basis adopted for determining the compensation is also incorrect. Sri A. Jayashanker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents-claimants on the other hand, supported the impugned Award of the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal while taking into account the age and earnings of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier ‘11’ and awarded the compensation and the same does not require any interference. According to the respondents-claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum by cultivating the lands. She also produced the pattadar pass books under Ex.A3 to show that the deceased was owning an extent of Acs. 4.67 and 4.69 cents of lands. She also stated that besides agriculture, the deceased earned a sum of Rs. 36,000/- per annum by selling the milk of the she buffaloes that were reared by him. Though P.w.1 pleaded that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.1,36,000/- per annum by cultivating the lands and by rearing the she buffaloes, she did not file any certificate from the Gram Panchayat or the Tahsildar to show that he was getting that much income, in the absence of which, the Tribunal, rightly took the income of the deceased as Rs. 42,000/- annually and after deducting one third of the amount towards personal expenses assessed the income of the deceased towards his family at Rs. 28,000/- annually. The Tribunal while taking into consideration the fact that the deceased, who was aged about 55 years died in the said accident while leaving behind him his wife and children and also the other relevant factors, applied the multiplier of 11 and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,08,000/- (Rs.28000 x 11). Even as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of 51 to 55 years is ‘11’ and thus it cannot be said that the multiplier of ‘11’ applied by the Tribunal in the instant case for assessing the quantum of compensation can be said to be incorrect. In addition to this, the Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st respondent, which is a conventional amount, to which she is rightly entitled to and the same does not require any interference. Though the respondents-claimants are entitled to compensation under the head loss of estate, which is a conventional amount, the Tribunal did not award any amount under that head. Even though there is no appeal or cross objections filed by the respondents-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, since it is only a conventional amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’. In all the respondents-claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.3,18,000/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% is reduced to 7%. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 22nd July, 2010 pnb [1] (2009)6 SCC 121