HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2165 OF 2001 Dated: 28.04.2010 BETWEEN: U.Narayana and another .. Appellants And P.Ramaswamy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2165 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the award, dated 07.04.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.322 of 1997. 2. The appellants are the son and daughter of the deceased, U.Harinarayana. The deceased was aged 58 years and was a retired employee on the date of his death. He died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 02.11.1996 while proceeding on his TVS moped when a lorry bearing No.TN 28T 6125 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the TVS moped, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over him. The learned Tribunal recorded categorical finding basing on the evidence forthcoming before it that the first respondent who is the owner of the lorry and the second respondent-insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured on the date of accident are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the said finding had not been challenged by any of the respondents. 3. I have hard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company. 4. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the quantum of compensation which was put to challenge by the claimants. Originally, along with the appellants/claimants, their mother, who is the widow of the deceased also claimed compensation, but during pendency of the appeal, she died. 5. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2500/-, but the method adopted by the learned Tribunal in computing the compensation and selection of multiplier is not appropriate. Therefore, this Court is inclined to calculate the compensation basing on the judgment of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. The monthly income of the deceased, who was said to be working as Commission Agent in a construction company was Rs.2500/- per month. He was aged 58 years on the date of death in the accident. His annual income comes to Rs.2500/- x 12 = Rs.30,000/-. From this 1/3 i.e. Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted towards his living and personal expenses and his contribution to the family comes to Rs.20,000/-. The appropriate multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased (58 years) is ‘9’. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the amount has to be capitalized with ‘9’ i.e. Rs.20,000/- x 9 = Rs. 1,80,000/-. This apart, the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore, the enhanced compensation amount comes to Rs.1,24,093/- (Rs.1,90,000/- (minus) Rs.65,907/-). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 6. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 28.04.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.2165 OF 2001 Dated: 28.04.2010 [1] 2009 ACJ 1298