THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4401 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31.10.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,65,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Lakshmanna, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 14.04.2004. 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased. According to them, on that day, when the deceased was driving the lorry bearing No.AP-21V-2142 of Mangala Transport on NH-7 to go to Yemmiganur, another lorry bearing No.AP-28V-2860, coming in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased after hitting a milk tanker. 5th respondent herein-owner of the offending lorry remained ex parte. Appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. Ex.X1-salary certificate of the deceased was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,65,500/- with interest @ 7.5%p.a., from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has applied higher multiplier of ‘16’ while estimating the loss of dependency. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month and applying the multiplier ‘16’ estimated the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.2,56,000/-. It is stated that the deceased was aged 40 years. He would further contend that as the deceased was running 41st year, his age ought to have been taken as 41 years. In that connection, he relies upon a decision reported in RAMESH SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER[1]. Even in the said case, the apex Court held that “taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the Courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of ‘8’ since the father was running 56th year of his life”. 7. In the above case also, the completed age of 55 years of the father was taken into consideration. However, insofar as the multiplier is concerned, in view of the recent decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2]. the appropriate multiplier for the age of 40 would be ‘15’. Thus taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses his contribution to the family would come to Rs.16,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier 15, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. Claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs.2,49,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th November, 2011 Tsy [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1233 [2] (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121