HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 2324 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 246 of 1998 filed by the appellants-claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/- for the death of one Sri Akkalagunta Kalagaiah aged about 47 years in a motor accident that occurred on 16.1.1996 when he was about board a lorry bearing No. AP 03 T 3497 belonging to the first respondent, after loading one bag of rice at the bus stand of Naidupet, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, the lorry ran over him causing grievous injuries and he was succumbed to the injuries on 3.12.1997. First respondent –owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent-Oriental Insurance Company field counter denying the allegations made in the petition 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 03T 3497 and taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 7, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/- as claimed. The Court below ought to have held that PW-4, the doctor has specifically stated that the deceased suffered fracture of right ankle with infected wound over the fracture and that on 29.8.1996 operation was done on the ankle and he was discharged on 9.10.1996 and he was taken treatment as out patient and the injuries are directly or indirectly responsible for the death of the patient and therefore, the Court below ought to have held that the death of the deceased was on account of the accident. He also submits that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of PW-6, the doctor, who treated the deceased and stated that the deceased died due to the grievous injuries. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 03 T 3497 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the lorry ran over him causing grievous injuries and latter he was succumbed to injuries. PW-4 , doctor opined that the deceased was suffering from stress diabetic and he simply mentioned that the death might have been caused directly or indirectly by the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW-6 , another doctor also treated the deceased and he deposed that the deceased died on 3.12.1998. Therefore, the deceased died for the injuries he sustained in the accident that occurred on 16.1.1996. Coming to the quantum aspect, the deceased was aged about 47 years and he was hale and healthy and was working as Lineman in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Naidupet, Division, and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,832.75 /- per month. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA AND TOEHRS VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age of 47 years is ‘13’. As per Ex. A-4, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,832.75/- but I can take the salary as Rs. 3,800/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs. 2,534/- per month (Rs. 3,800/- - 1,266/- = 2,534/-) and per annum it comes to Rs.30,400/- and the relevant multiplier if applied the amount comes to Rs. 3,95,200/- (30,400 x 13). But the claimants only claimed the compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/- therefore, the amount now granted is restricted to the amount claimed by the claimants. 6. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed restricting the compensation claimed at Rs. 2,06,000/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 30.9.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129