IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.1778 of 2005 Between: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Arundelpet, Guntur .. Appellant AND Annapareddy Padmavathi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.250 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 18- 02-2002. Annapareddy Gopala Krishna Reddy was travelling in jeep No.AP 7U 3683 on 13-12-1997 and at about 5.30 P.M. after the jeep crossed Dhulipala, lorry No. AP 7T 5046, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the jeep. Gopala Krishna Reddy suffered multiple injuries and was shifted to Government hospital, Sattenapalli where he died and crime No.129 of 1997 was registered by Sattenapalli Rural police against the lorry driver. Inquest and post-mortem were held and Gopala Krishna Reddy, a Post-graduate in Commerce, was Sarpanch of his village and was working as Field Manager in Nagarjuna Dairy Products Private Limited for a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. The wife, two minor sons and mother were solely dependent on Gopala Krishna Reddy and hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants, questioned the existence of valid licences for the drivers and contended that the owner and insurer of the jeep are necessary parties to the claim. The claim stated to be excessive was requested to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the eye witness account of P.W.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet to conclude that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased to be 32 years as per Ex.A.3 post-mortem certificate, while taking his salary as Rs.4,500/- per month as stated in Ex.A.5 appointment order excluding the travelling allowance of Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal relied for this purpose on the evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A.5, A.6 and X.1 in the absence of any circumstances to the contrary and having found that the dependents have no other source of livelihood, assessed the compensation by deducting one-third of the salary towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 17 to arrive at Rs.6,12,000/- as the loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. As the Tribunal found no other circumstance disentitling the claimants to compensation, it awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,21,500/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum with further directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The insurer filed the present appeal questioning the assessment of the income which should have been limited to Rs.48,000/- per annum and not taking into account the uncertainties of life was also criticized. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri M. Sravankumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4/claimants are heard. The owner of the lorry is unrepresented before this Court. The insurer did not question the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the lorry driver, the owner and insurer being jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased and the claimants being the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation. The evidence of P.W.3, the employer, was rightly considered by the Tribunal to be independent and acceptable. P.W.3 is the Managing Director of the company, which issued Ex.A.5 appointment order and Ex.A.6 confirmation order and stated on oath about the audit report of the company also showing payments to the deceased at the same level and he produced Ex.X.1 audit report also and therefore, while the travelling allowance of Rs.1,500/- per month was rightly not taken into account, taking his salary as Rs.4,500/- per month cannot be criticized. The age of the deceased was taken as 32 years with reference to the post-mortem certificate and assessment of the age by medical expert in the absence of any other material is a safe guide. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be considered wrong in the assessment of the income of the deceased. But when it came to the application of multiplier or deduction towards the personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, the calculation is not in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. The appropriate multiplier would have been 16 and the deduction towards personal expenses could have been only one-fourth, the number of dependents being four. However, the claimants themselves having not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objections, may not be entitled to any enhancement, but the compensation already awarded also cannot be reduced including even in respect of the loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate awarded by the Tribunal, which are lesser than the amounts indicated by Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra). However, when it came to the interest awarded on the compensation at 9 per cent per annum, in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra), the Apex Court adopted the interest of 6 per cent per annum, while the learned counsel for the claimants Sri Sravankumar relied on Supe Dei and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[2], wherein referring to Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 9], the Apex Court observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of interest awarded. However, it is seen from the various precedents from the Apex Court and this Court that the rate of interest is varying from time to time obviously depending upon the rates of interest adopted by the scheduled banks on lending or borrowing. Keeping in view the period of the accident and the claim and the length of time for which the insurer, which is also a custodian of public funds, has to pay the interest, adopting the rate of interest at 7.5 per cent per annum will be exercising the judicial discretion vested in the Tribunal under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act appropriately. Except modification of the rate of interest, the award needs no interference in any other respect. In the result, the award, dated 18-02-2002 in M.V.O.P. No.250 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur is confirmed in all respects except for confining the interest payable on the compensation from the date of the claim till realization to 7.5 per cent per annum. The civil miscellaneous appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-09-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 513