IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1754 of 2005 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional manager, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Somili Bai and 6 others .. Respondents ORDER: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1291 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy, dated 29-01-2005. Shanker Naik, aged 30 years, was going as labourer in lorry No.ABT-3404 on 15-03-2001 and the lorry carrying granite stones was driven rashly and negligently and near Mudimyal gate, the lorry hit a tree and turned turtle. Sanker Naik sitting on the lorry, received serious injuries and died on the spot. The police registered a crime against the lorry driver and Sanker Naik earning Rs.3,000/- per month was contributing the same in its entirety to his two wives, parents and infant son and daughter. Hence, the dependents claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying any negligence of the lorry driver or his having a valid driving licence or the terms and conditions of the policy being not violated. The insurer claimed the accident to have not been reported to it and desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the subsisting insurance of the vehicle and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the eye-witness account of PW.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and rejected the plea about any tyre burst being the cause for the accident. The Tribunal, in assessing the compensation, found the respondents to be liable under the subsisting insurance policy and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the age of the deceased as 33 years as stated in Ex.A.4-Post Mortem Certificate. Applying a multiplier of 17 to such income and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal quantified the loss of support to the family at Rs.4,08,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal referring to the power of the Tribunal to award just compensation directed the award to be limited to the amount claimed in the event of the required court fee not being paid on the balance of the amount. The rate of interest was also adopted by the Tribunal with reference to the decisions of the Apex Court and the rate of interest charged by the banks. The Tribunal also gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer is before this Court with this appeal contending that there was no negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the accident due to the tyre burst could not have been termed as due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The insurer also contended that the earnings of the deceased assessed at Rs.3,000/- and assessing the income for all the 30 days in case of labour and applying a multiplier of 17 are all excessive and the excessive compensation, therefore, needs to be revised. Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy, learned counsel for the insurer and Smt. K. Vijaya, learned counsel, representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, are heard and none appeared for the 7th respondent before this Court. Though the insurer attempted to challenge the finding about the responsibility for the accident, the fact remains that the claims of PW.2, the eye-witness corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-Charge sheet and Ex.A.3-M.V.I. report remained uncontroverted by any evidence for the respondents. Neither the owner nor the insurer has taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending lorry or any other eye witness to the accident to believe that a sudden burst of tyre caused the accident, which the driver could not have avoided by any means of diligence and care. The Tribunal had come to a finding of fact that the evidence of PW.2 that due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry at high speed, rim of the tyre had come out from the vehicle resulting in the burst of the tyre was corroborated by the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report and has to be accepted. In the absence of any material to deviate from the said conclusion, the responsibility of both the respondents to the claim to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Shanker Naik cannot be in doubt. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the probable income of the deceased as labourer at Rs.3,000/- per month and there is no material on record to indicate that the then prevailing rates of wages for such labourers were any less or the minimum wages payable to such labourers at about the relevant time were drastically less than what was assessed. The nature of the work was taken into account by the Tribunal in its wisdom and experience in assessing such income and in the absence of any strong material to interfere with such assessment, the same cannot be condemned at the appellate level. The age of the deceased as 30 years was indicated by the Post Mortem Certificate and the assessment of the age by the medical expert need not be deviated from in the absence of any other material on record and the appropriate multiplier applicable to a person of age of 33 years is 16 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], while the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The minor difference in the multiplier also needs no interference at this distance of time as the Apex Court itself pointed out in the said decision that the choice of the multiplier depended on various imponderables and application of different operative multipliers is taken recourse to by the Tribunals or Courts depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. As application of multiplier is not based on any strict mathematical formula, any minor deviation need not be interfered with. The loss of dependency arrived at Rs.4,08,000/- by such assessment by the Tribunal or the further grant of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses need not be interfered with, more so, when the total sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded under other heads is also in tune with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra). While the quantum of compensation awarded was thus higher than the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- claimed by the claimants, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the principles laid down in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others[2] to contend that such an enhanced claim could have been entertained only if the claimants had come up with an appropriate application for grant of their claim and such application for amendment has been positively considered by the Tribunal. However, Their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down in the said decision itself positively that there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount and that the function of the Tribunal is to award just compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Though in appropriate cases, the Apex Court referred to the need to permit the filing of the petition for amendment and allowing the same, they are not indispensable for entertainment of any grant of a higher compensation than claimed, if such compensation is justified by the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. The grant of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be considered higher in that view. Coming to the interest awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal of course referred to the various decisions wherein the grant of interest varied between 6% and 12% p.a. The Tribunal considered it just to award interest at 9% p.a. However, a perusal of various precedents shows that the rate of interest awarded by the Court depended on the prevailing rate of interest charged or paid by the Scheduled Banks at the relevant time and in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra), the Apex Court adopted the rate of interest at 6% p.a. Keeping in view the fact that the insurer is also a custodian of public funds and in the light of the long period for which such interest has to be paid on the compensation substantially awarded in the present case, confining the interest to 7.5% will be answering the ends of justice. Therefore, rate of interest alone needs to be modified, while the award needs no interference in other respects. In the result, the award dated 29-01-2005 in O.P.No.1291 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy is confirmed in all respects excepting concerning the rate of interest on the compensation awarded and such interest shall, therefore, be 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2003 ACJ 12