HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1208 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 652 of 2003 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of one J. Urukundu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.10.2003 when the deceased and third appellant boarded a lorry bearing registration No. ATA 1899 at Bahadurpura along with their goods with an intention to go to Dhone and when the lorry reached Balanagar Police Station, Mahabub Nagar District on N.H.7 road, one lorry bearing registration No. AP-9/W-3888 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the lorry bearing No. ATA 1899 and as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The first respondent-owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 9W/3888 remained ex parte and the second respondent insurer, United India Insurance Company Limited filed common written statement denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 9 W 3888 by its driver and fixed the liability on both the respondents. First respondent has to pay the amount and the second respondent has to indemnify the same being the insurer of the vehicle. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the evidence of PW 1, wife of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the meager amount as income of the deceased and it ought to have seen that the income of the deceased is proved by examining PWs 1 to 3 and the court can award the compensation to the claimants as prayed for. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the correct multiplier and thereby deprived the appellants from getting reasonable compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, but as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 15.10.2003 when the deceased and third appellant boarded a lorry bearing registration No. ATA 1899 at Bahadurpura along with their goods with an intention to go to Dhone and when the lorry reached Balanagar Police Station, Mahabub Nagar District on N.H.7 road, one lorry bearing registration No. AP-9/W-3888 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high- speed hit the lorry bearing No. ATA 1899 and as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence with regard to income as there is no documentary evidence to believe that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing business, therefore, it taken Rs. 18,000/- per annum as the income of the deceased. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month is taken as the income of the deceased. Out of that 1/5th of the amount if deducted towards personal and living expenses, as the number of dependents is 7 members, the amount comes to Rs. 2,400/- per month (3000 x 1/5 = 600 - 3,000 = 2,400) and per annum it comes to Rs. 28,800/- (2,400x12= 28,800). The relevant multiplier for the age of 39 years is 15 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (28,800 x 15 = 4,32,000). 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 4,32,000/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 03.02.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) scale 129