THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1002 of 2004 and CMA No.1347 of 2004 Dated 12-8-2010 CMA No.1002 of 2004 Between: Smt. B. Usha, W/o.late B. Madhusudhan & others Appellants…. Vs. M/s.Jyothirmayi Finance Ltd., & another Respondents.. CMA No.1347 of 2004 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Appellant…. Vs Smt. B. Usha, W/o.late B. Madhusudhan & others Respondents… THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1002 of 2004 and CMA No.1347 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are filed against the same award dated 13-11- 2003 passed in OP No.2393 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, they are being taken up for disposal by this common judgment. CMA No.1002 of 2004 is filed by the claimants in the OP and CMA No.1347 of 2004 is filed by the insurance company. The OP was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the untimely death of B.Madhusudhan in the motor vehicle accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-on 12-10-2000 at about 9- 45 pm the deceased and others were going in a Maruthi van bearing registration no.AIH 2844 from Nampally to Hyderabad and when they reached near KM Stone 20/126 on Hyderabad-Nagarjunasagar road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 9U 7407 came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruthi van, due to the impact of the same, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was shifted to Kamineni hospitals, Hyderabad and he died while undergoing treatment. It is stated that the deceased was aged 53 years and was working as Mandal Revenue Officer drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. To prove the accident, the claimants filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR and Ex.A-2 copy of the charge sheet and Ex.A-3 copy of inquest report. Ex.A- 5 is the copy of MVI’s report. Ex.A-6 is the copy of date of birth certificate of the deceased. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. PW-2 eye witness was examined to prove the accident. PW-3 was examined to prove the income of the deceased. PW-2 explained the manner in which the accident occurred. None was examined on behalf of the owner of the accident lorry and the insurance company, except marking Ex.B-1 copy of the insurance policy. Considering the evidence on this point, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry bearing registration No.AP 9U 7407, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for interference by this Court. 5. Coming to the question of award of just compensation, as seen from the evidence of PW-3 the successor MRO, Nampally, has identified Ex.A-12 salary certificate issued to the deceased and stated that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.10,922/- and was working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally. Though it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month since there is no proof to that effect, the income shown in Ex.A-12 is to be considered. Considering the age of the deceased at 53 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 (6) SCALE 129) is ‘11’. Inasmuch as there are four dependents, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA’s case, 1/4th amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (Rs.10,922 x 12 x 11 (-) 1/4th) Rs.10,81,278/-. To this amount, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and other claimants to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling to Rs.11,01,278/-. However, the rate of interest on the total amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal at 9 % per annum is reduced to 6 % per annum in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA’s case. 6. In the result, the appeal CMA No.1002 of 2004 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the appeal CMA No.1347 of 2004 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated 12-8-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA Nos.1002 of 2004 and 1347 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: 12-8-2010