THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1435 OF 2006 DATED: 23-10-2009 Between: The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Officer: Sanghamitra bank complex, Prakasam bazaar, Nalgonda. ..... APPELLANT And Sri Tekulapally Gouraiah & 6 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 07-03-2006, in O.P.No.1085 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 6 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 6 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Santhamma who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-11-2004 at 8.30 p.m. near Chennamnenipalli bus stage of Devarakonda. The 1st claimant is the husband; claimants 2 and 3 are the sons and claimants 4 to 6 are the children of the pre-deceased daughter of the deceased-Santhamma. 4. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing cultivation and also milk business and earning Rs.5000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of the family. It is stated that on 21-12-2004 while she was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP24-U-8863 from Tekulapalli to Peravala and when the auto reached Chinnamnenipalli bus stage, a tractor bearing No.AP-24-J-5737 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries all over the body and subsequently died while she was being shifted to Osmania General hospital. A case in Cr.No.234 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the tractor. 5. The 7th respondent herein, the owner of the tractor, remained ex parte. The appellant herein filed counter opposing the claim and denying the liability. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer but Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for recovery of compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the inquest report-Ex.A2 and postmortem report-A3 mention the age of the deceased as 48 years, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the age of the deceased as 42 years and applied multiplier of ‘15’ instead of ‘13’. She would further submit that there is no evidence to show that there was any loss of income on account of the death of the deceased inasmuch as the landed property and also the buffaloes remained intact yielding the same amount of income even after the death of the deceased. 8. It is not disputed that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-11-2004 while she was travelling in the auto which was dashed against by the tractor. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver was also not seriously disputed. It is also not disputed that Ex.B1-copy of the policy was not issued by the date of the accident covering the risk in respect of the third parties and therefore the appellant- insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. The only question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal, is regarding the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the claimants. 10. Ex.A2-copy of the inquest report and Ex.A3- Certified copy of the postmortem report clearly show that the deceased was aged 48 years by the date of the accident. The Tribunal erred in observing that no document is produced to prove the correct age of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 42 years, as claimed by the claimants, and applied the multiplier ‘15’ which is not sustainable in view of the fact that the deceased was shown to be aged 48 years by the date of the accident. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), the suitable multiplier that is applicable for a person aged 48 years is ‘13’. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurer would submit that i n SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the apex Court, after analyzing the multiplier as mentioned in the second schedule of the Act and also in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SUSAMMA THOMAS [2], has held in paragraph 21 as follows: “We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 ( for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M- 7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years”. 12. As per the above decision, the suitable multiplier for a person aged between 46 and 50 is ‘13’ reduced by ‘1’ which comes to ‘12’. 13. Regarding the income of the deceased, though the lands and buffaloes can be said to be intact even after the death of the deceased, still the services of the deceased in the matter of cultivation and also rearing the buffaloes and milching them and selling the milk and deriving income thereby, which have been lost to the family on account of the death of the deceased, have to be necessarily valued and taken into consideration while estimating the loss of dependency. Though the claimants have claimed Rs.5000/- per month as income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the same as only Rs.3000/- per month. Even if the services of the deceased are valued at Rs.100/- per day it comes to about Rs.3000/- per month. The amount of Rs.3000/ per month taken into consideration by the Tribunal cannot therefore be held to be unjust or unreasonable. Whatever be the head under which the compensation is granted, after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses the Tribunal has taken the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.2000/- per month which is quite reasonable. Applying the multiplier of ‘12’ to the said amount of Rs.24,000/- p.a., the loss of dependency worked out to Rs.2,88,000/- ( Rs.24,000/- X 12). The amount of Rs.2500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium are in accordance with the second Schedule of the Act and they are sustained. The claimants are therefore entitled to Rs.2,97,500/-( Rs.2,88,000/- + Rs.2500/- + Rs.2000/- + Rs.5000/-) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 14. In the circumstances, the award impugned is modified as stated above, awarding the compensation of Rs.2,97,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition. 15. In the result, Appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd October, 2009 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] (1994) 2 SCC 176