HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.671 of 2008 Date: 29-7-2011 Between Chimalapati Surya Kumari … Appellant/Petitioner No.1 and Janglibhai Mahaboob Syed and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents Chimalapati Venkata Ramana and another … Respondents/Petitioners 2 and 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.671 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02-01-2007 in O.P.No.962 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-1st petitioner. 2. The appellant herein is the 1st petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 are the petitioners 2 and 3 in O.P.No.962 of 2006 before the tribunal below. The claimants filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Chimalapati Suri Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who was the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26-6-2006. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,800/- under all heads, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the 1st claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-1st claimant mainly contended that the tribunal below awarded very meagre compensation, while applying multiplier ‘10.45’ instead of ‘14’ and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1]. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company fairly conceded about the application of multiplier ‘14’ while computing the compensation in this case. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ? 6. Point:- The factum of accident is not in dispute. The tribunal below, while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, or Rs.36,000/- per annum. As seen from the impugned order, the claimants did not file any documentary proof regarding the earnings of the deceased, however, the annual income arrived by the tribunal below, in my view, is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. As seen from the guidelines in SARLA VERMA‘s case (1 supra), multiplier ‘14’ has to be applied to the age group between 41 and 45 years. In the present case on hand, the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of death and therefore the multiplier ’10.45’ applied by the tribunal below is erroneous. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. If the multiplier ‘14’ is applied, the contribution of the deceased towards the petitioners comes to Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 14). The tribunal below granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.5,000/- each towards love and affection to the petitioners 2 and 3 i.e., Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,000/- towards transport of dead body and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The petitioners, being the dependants of the deceased, are also entitled to the said amounts, totalling to Rs.29,000/- on the death of the deceased, and the same are sustainable. Accordingly, the claimants, in total, are entitled to Rs.3,65,000/- (Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.29,000/-). However, the rate of interest granted by the tribunal below is reduced from 7.5% to 6% per annum. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal below from Rs.2,79,800/- to Rs.3,65,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty five thousand only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 29th July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.671 of 2008 29th July, 2011. (Ak) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121