HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.843 OF 2000 DATED: 14.12.2009 BETWEEN: Chintapalli Satyavathi and others .. Appellants And Vijayagiri Kameswara Rao and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.843 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 04.07.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.231 of 1994. 2. The appellants are claimants before the learned Tribunal. The first appellant is the wife, the appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Ch.Ganga Rao. On account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 05.03.1994, the appellants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal upon making an enquiry into the said claim petition, granted an amount of Rs.1,21,884/- as compensation. 3. The appellants’ challenged the award on the ground that the compensation granted is not just and reasonable and deserves to be enhanced. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants as well as the second respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased Ch.Ganga Rao was working as S.I. of Police on the date of his death and his net salary was Rs.4,340/-. It is also borne out from Ex.A.2 – salary certificate filed by the appellants. Ex.A.3-post mortem report indicates that the age of the deceased was 57 years. The learned Tribunal wrongly took into consideration the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.4700/- per month. Further the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 4.27 as per the decision in BHAGWANDAS V. MOHD.ARIF[1]. I n SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2] the Supreme Court laid down certain principles regarding the computation of compensation basing on multiplier method and a table has also been furnished in the said decision for selecting the multiplier basing on the age of the deceased. As per the said decision, the relevant multiplier is ‘9’ which has to be applied in the present case. 6. The net salary of the deceased was Rs.4340/- per month, out of this 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, then his contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,894/- per month and the annual contribution comes to Rs.2894/- x 12 = 34,728/-. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the said amount has to be multiplied with ‘9’ which comes to Rs.34,728/- x 9 = Rs.3,12,552/-. This apart, the first appellant, who is the wife of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are entitled for further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,32,552/-. The enhancement of compensation therefore, would be Rs.2,10,668/-. However, the interest of 12% per annum being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. In the result, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,21,884/- to Rs.3,32,552/- and the appeal is partly allowed without any order as to costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 14.12.2009 kvrm [1] 1987(2) ALT 137 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298