HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.536 OF 2003 Dated 3 -12-2010 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Seethampeta Road, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. …Appellant. And: Vudikala Lora Vorgilia and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.536 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-National Insurance Company in M.O.P.No.625 of 2001 against the orders dated 9-9-2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The deceased was aged about 58 years and working as Office Superintendent in Naval Base and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/-. The accident occurred on 19-3- 2001 at 1.00 P.M., and a case was registered by Bheemili Police Station in Cr.No.71 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. That while deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler bearing No.AP-31-R-2748 from Tagarapuvalasa and when they reached Car Shed area, Madhurawada, a lorry bearing No.AP-16 W 1565 belonging to the 1st respondent came from opposite side and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the motor cyclist sustained injuries and died while on the way to K.G.H. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased. They claimed Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal allowed their claim in part granting a total compensation of Rs.7,34,728/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. 4. The appellant - Insurance Company is not disputing either the facts or negligence on the part of the lorry driver etc. It is questioning only quantum of compensation as awarded by the lower Tribunal. The learned counsel representing the appellant- Insurance Company, Sri Kota Subba Rao contends that the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and he was about to retire after two years. As such, the wife and other dependants would get full pension for two years. The learned counsel further contends that the lower Tribunal erred in applying multiplier ‘8’, though, he had only two years service; that his family members are entitled to full pension for seven years and as such the learned counsel contends that the lower Tribunal ought not to have pressed the multiplier into service; that it ought to have applied lesser multiplier and that the learned counsel suggests that the same is required to be reduced to multiplier ‘2’. Moreover, the learned counsel contends that the claimants 2 to 4 are the major sons of the deceased and as such they cannot be said to be dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Lastly, the learned counsel contends that the interest awarded at 9% is also required to be scaled down as per the decision reported in SARALA VARMA & OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents/claimants that the receipt of full pension for seven years is not the criteria for reducing or scaling down the appropriate multiplier. It is submitted that the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of his death. Therefore, the lower Tribunal cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel relied on in this regard a decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Renu Bala and others[2], wherein it was held that family pension received by the claimants should not be deducted while determining the loss of dependency. Relying on this decision, the learned counsel submits that reducing the appropriate multiplier is tantamount to deducting the family pension received or to be received by the claimants. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the lower Tribunal was right in pressing multiplier ‘8’ into service having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of his death. 6. The avocation, earnings and age of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.11,157/- per month. Out of the said salary, CCA of Rs.180/- and transport allowance of Rs.75/- were deducted and the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.10,902/- per month. 1/3rd of it was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.7,268/-per month and annually it came to Rs.87,216/-. Since the age of the deceased was 58 years, appropriate multiplier ‘8’ was applied and thus total loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 6,97,728/- (Rs.87,216 x 8). In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,34,728/- 7. In the circumstances and in view of the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Renu Bala and others (supra 2), this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the rate of interest stands scaled down from 9% to 7.5% per annum. ___________________________ Justice B.N.RAO NALLA Date: 3 -12-2010. Note: C.C. in one week B/o. Stp/Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No.536 OF 2003 Dated -12-2010 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] 2005 ACJ 619 (D.B.) (Panjab and Haryana)