THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.5550 of 2008 Date : 29-4-2010 Between : The New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by its Deputy Manager Secunderabad .. Appellant And B.Satyanarayana s/o.late Pentaiah and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.5550 of 2008 ORDER: 1. The 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited had preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 in the M.A.C.M.A. are claimants in O.P.No.575/2007 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said O.P. was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. But however, the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as “Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience), partly allowed the same with proportionate costs awarding a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, on the ground that higher compensation was awarded, the New India Assurance Company Limited – 2nd respondent, preferred the present M.A.CM.A. 3. Sri T.Ramulu, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Tribunal totally erred in taking the multiplier as 6.42 for the age 52 instead of 6.26. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had pointed out to Ex.A-4 and made certain further submissions relating to the income and other aspects as well. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 1 to 6 had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the Tribunal and would maintain that in the light of the convincing findings which had been recorded, the M.A.C.M.A. to be dismissed. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following Points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A.: (a) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be confirmed or to be set aside or to be modified in the circumstances of the case ? (b) If so to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 7. Point (a): The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.575/2007 as aforesaid. 8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Smt.B.Chandrakala, aged 50 years, who was working as a Senior Attender in Railway Hospital, Lalaguda, who was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, died in the road accident on 4-1-2007. The deceased along with others including PW-2 were walking on the road and near Lalaguda Bridge, Secunderabad, the private bus bearing No.AP 16 TV 6188 driven in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came in a wrong side of the road, hit Smt.Chandrakala causing fatal injuries. She was shifted to Railway Hospital, Secunderabad where she was declared dead. The police registered the F.I.R. against the driver of the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are husband and children of the deceased who laid claim for a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 9. The 1st respondent had not chosen to contest the matter. The 2nd respondent, by filing counter, pleaded contributory negligence and that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore the policy is violated and the company is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. On the strength of these pleadings, the following Issues were settled by the Tribunal : 1. Whether Smt.B.Chandrakala died on 4-1-2007 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.AP 16TV 6188 ? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation ? If so against whom ? 3. To what relief ? 11. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PW-1, marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the present appellant, no oral evidence had been let in, but however Ex.B-1 – copy of insurance policy alone had been marked. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and also Ex.A-1 – certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2 – certified copy of inquest, Ex.A-3 – Xerox copy of death certificate of the deceased and Ex.A-4 – Pay slip of the deceased, and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. In the light of the evidence available on record, the age of the deceased appears to be 52 years and this aspect is not in serious controversy. The principal ground which had been argued in elaboration is that wrong multiplier had been applied. There appears to be some slight variation. In stead of adopting the multiplier 6.42, 6.26 to be adopted. If the said multiplier is adopted, an amount of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand only) to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the light of the same, the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- is deducted by Rs.28,000/- i.e., Rs.5,10,000/- – Rs.28,000/- = Rs.4,82,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Two thousand only). 12. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified and it is needless to say that the quantum of compensation fixed by this Court is payable to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposited as directed by the Tribunal. To the said extent, the award is hereby modified. 13. The M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 29-4-2010 AM