HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 998 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Order and Decree dated 14.10.2003 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1401 of 2001 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Ch. Bikshapathi in a motor accident that occurred on 7/8-4- 2001 when the deceased was crossing the road near Laxmi Transport Autonagar on National High way No. 9 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada road, DCM Van bearing No. AP 28U 1981 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner came from Vijayawada side going towards Hyderabad side dashed the deceased. Due to which, the deceased received head injury and other fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries while taking him to kamineni Hospitals. First respondent owner of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28U 1981 and the second respondent-Oriental Insurance Company filed counter affidavits denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28U 1981 belonging to the first respondent. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs A1 to A6, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,23,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Court below wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased on lower side and wrongly grated less compensation. He also contended that the Court below wrongly taken the contribution of the deceased, on lower side and granted less compensation towards consortium to the first appellant. Even multiplier also taken on lower side and granted less compensation. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van bearing No. AP 28U 1981 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. PW-2 is an eye witness, he stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the DCM van bearing No. AP 28U 1981 while the deceased crossing the road. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who stated that her husband was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident and his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month and according to her the deceased was a lorry driver in Laxmi Transport Company, Autonagar, Hyderabad. But the Court below taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 18,000/- per annum and calculated the amount. Hence, the ends of justice would meet if Rs. 3,000/- per month taken as the wages of the deceased. Thus the net income of the deceased per annum comes to Rs 36,000/- (3,000x12=36,000). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 , 1/4th where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. In this particular case, the number of dependent family members is 5, hence, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and if deducted the amount of contribution towards family comes to Rs. 27,000/- (Rs.36,000x1/4=9000-36,000=27,000). As per Ex. A4, is postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased was 32 years and for the age of 32 years the relevant multiplier is 16 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR (supra-1) and if applied the correct multiplier the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (27,000x16=4,32,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium totaling to Rs. 4,52,000/-. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,23,000/- to Rs. 4,52,000/-. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned among the claimants as fixed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129