THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2380 OF 2006 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS {SR} NO.211 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company against the judgment dated 09.06.2006 in O.P.No.139 of 2006 on the file of the MACT-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing in part the claim for compensation on account of death of the deceased-N.Kishan in a motor vehicle accident. The respondents- claimants filed cross objections seeking further enhancement in regard to the quantum. Hence, both the Appeal and the Cross Objections {SR} are taken up together for disposal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.10.2003, while the deceased was driving his two wheeler, the Tempo bearing No.AP 0 X 1601 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 27.10.2003. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was the sole bread winner and he has got substantial service left and he was getting Rs.13,000/- salary per month apart from other benefits to which he is entitled. Hence, claim was made for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, remained ex parte. Contesting the said claim, the case of the Insurance Company was that of total denial stating that the quantum of compensation claimed is arbitrary and on higher side. After framing the issues, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2 on their behalf. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, except marking Ex.B1. After considering the evidence and material on record, especially taking into account the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident, the Court below held that there was rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. There is no serious challenge against the said finding more so, there was no appeal in view of the same. Coming to the assessment for fixing the compensation, the Court below has taken into consideration the salary of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per month and also other emoluments to which he is entitled and ultimately, fixed the total compensation at Rs.11,14,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 %. Hence, the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company and also the respondents-claimants/cross objectors, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum as taken into account by the Court below is correct or not. There is no dispute in regard to the various aspects as explained to and substantiated on behalf of the claimants through P.W.1. The details of the employment were also given by her. P.W.2 is only an eye witness and P.W.3 is another witness supporting the case of the claimants. Following the principles laid down in A.Vijaya v. A.Rajan[1], the Court below fixed the per annum contribution at Rs.1,26,666/- and by applying multiplier ‘8.5’, assessed compensation at Rs.11,14,000/-. In view of the principles laid down in Salra Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another[2], the multiplier, which needs to be applied taking into consideration the age of the deceased, is ‘13’ and there is no dispute on either side in this regard. Hence, the total compensation is as under. Rs. Salary per month = 17,578/- As per decision, add 30% = 5,273/- ________________ Hence, salary per month = 22,851/- ________________ Per annum {22,851/- x 12} = 2,74,212/- Deduct 1/4th towards expenses = 68,553/- ________________ = 2,05,659/- ________________ After calculating with Multiplier ‘13’ {2,05,659 x 13}, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.26,73,567/- {Rupees twenty six lakh seventy three thousand five hundred and sixty seven only}. Though the claimants restricted their claim only to Rs.20,00,000/-, having regard to the facts and circumstances and especially the principle that the claimants should be entitled to the just compensation to which they are entitled rather than restraining their claim, we are of the view that the compensation needs no reduction. The present amount of Rs.26,73,567/- will be in addition to an amount of Rs.37,000/- {Rupees thirty seven thousand only}, which was already granted for the purpose of treatment to the injuries, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Further, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. It has been pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent i.e., the wife of the deceased died during the pendency of this appeal and all the legal representatives are already on record. In view of the same, all the respondents-claimants are entitled to equal shares of the amount awarded as compensation. Subject to the above, the MACMA is dismissed and the Cross Objections {SR} are allowed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 31st March 2010 RRB [1] 2005 (4) ALT AP 487 (D.B.) [2] 2009 ACJ 1298