HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.720 OF 2000 DATED: 11.09.2009 BETWEEN: Smt Shameem Fathima and others .. Appellants And The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance company Ltd And another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.720 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 05.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy in O.P.No.237 of 1995. 2. The appellants/claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohd.Gulam Ahmed who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7.11.1994. The appellants in their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Challenge to the award by the appellants/claimants is only to the quantum of compensation. According, to the appellants the amount of compensation granted is very low and is not in accordance with law and therefore, it deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the first respondent – insurance company. 5. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act is just and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement, if so, to what extent? 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased worked as Senior Line Inspector in APSEB at Toopran on the date of his death in the motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which being the salary mentioned in Ex.A.6 salary certificate. In fact, in Ex.A.6, the salary of the deceased is mentioned as Rs.6,595/-, but considering the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month has not been objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal arrived at the annual loss of dependency of the appellants at Rs.39,984/- after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased and therefore, it is also not in dispute. Even though, no certificate in proof of the age of the deceased was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal, they filed Ex.A.4 certified copy of the postmortem report, according to which the deceased was aged about 55 years on the date of his death, though in the claim petition it is mentioned as 50 years. However, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 56 years for the purpose of computing the compensation. In my view, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the age, which is more than what was mentioned in the postmortem report and that at least it has to be confined to one mentioned in the postmortem report. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the compensation, the age of the deceased is considered as 55 years on the date of accident. The multiplier as per Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicle Act is ‘11’. To arrive at the loss of dependency the above amount has to be capitalized with multiplier ‘11’ which comes to RS.39,984/- x 11 = 4,39,824/-. This apart, the first claimant who is the widow is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and all the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation for which the claimants are entitled is Rs.4,59,824/-. 7. In NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1] it was laid down that the award need not be limited to the amounts specified in the claim petition. The only embargo is that the compensation should be just compensation. The Court therefore, is not barred from awarding compensation in excess of what is claimed. In this appeal, this Court can enhance the amount of compensation even more than what was actually claimed in the claim petition, provided, it appears to be just and reasonable. In the instant case, there are ten claimants. The first claimant is the widow, 10th claimant is the mother and claimants 2 to 9 are the children of the deceased. Further, the amount granted by the Tribunal in it’s award is on account of not taking the proper age of the deceased, and selecting a wrong multiplier. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the above amount granted as compensation in this appeal is just and reasonable for which the claimants are entitled to. 8. The enhancement of compensation therefore, is Rs.4,59,824/- minus Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.3,49,824/-. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum in this appeal. Apportionment of compensation shall be as indicated by the Tribunal in it’s award. All the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount granted towards their respective shares. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed without any order as to costs. _________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.09.2009 kvrm [1] AIR 2003 SC 674