HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.361 of 2008 Date: 15-7-2011 Between The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and Peetala Rathna and 3 others … Respondents/Claimants H.Chinni and another … Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.361 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.737 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge, FAC/VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, East Godavari district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. The appellant herein is the 3rd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.737 of 2005 before the tribunal below. The respondents 1 to 4-claimants filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of deceased Peetala Chandra Rao in a road traffic accident that occurred on 05-6-2005. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,36,500/- under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly urged that the tribunal below ought to have applied multiplier ‘5’ for the age group of the deceased as 65 years and the tribunal below erroneously applied the multiplier ‘11’ and awarded compensation, which is erroneous and sought for setting aside the said finding. 4. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the finding of the tribunal below while assessing the compensation by applying multiplier ‘11’ is sustainable ? 5. Point:- The factum of accident is not disputed. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence Exs.A-1 and A-2 fastened the liability against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, in turn, disputed the same. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 65 years as on the date of accident. The tribunal below assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.50/- per day, which comes to Rs.1,500/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the net income of the deceased per month is Rs.1,000/-, which is Rs.12,000/- per year. As per the evidence of P.W.1, son of the deceased, the age of the deceased was 65 years as on the date of accident. If the age of the deceased is 65 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1] is ‘5’. If the multiplier ‘5’ is applied to the annual income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-, it comes to Rs.60,000/-. The tribunal below awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, the same are confirmed. In total, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.64,500/- (Rupees sixty four thousand and five hundred only). 7. With this modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal below from Rs.1,36,500/- to Rs.64,500/- (Rupees sixty four thousand and five hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 15th July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.361 of 2008 15th July, 2011. (Ak) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121