HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 557 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Order and Decree dated 30.9.2003 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1179 of 2002 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the death of one Nagaraju in a motor accident that occurred on 25.5.2002 when the deceased was driving Tata 407 Van on National Highway 7 near flyover bridge Thondupally Village, a lorry belonging to the first respondent, bearing No. AP10T- 7897 came in an opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the Van. Due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injures on the same day at 7.00 a.m. First respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 10T 7897 remained ex-parte and the second respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 10T 7897 belonging to the first respondent. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs A1 to A8 and also Ex. B1, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,13,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Court below wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased on lower side and wrongly grated less compensation. He also contended that the Court below wrongly taken the contribution by the deceased to the appellants, on lower side and granted less compensation towards consortium to the first appellant. Even the multiplier also taken on lower side and granted less compensation. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 10T 7897 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. PW-2 is an eye witness, who traveled in the same jeep along with the deceased, stated that the lorry came in a high speed in an opposite direction dashed against the jeep. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who stated that her husband was aged 26 years and his income was Rs. 4,500/- per month and according to her the deceased was driver in Sri Raghavendra Marketing Distribution of Amul Ice Creams and Ex. A6 is the salary certificate issued by Sri Raghavendra Marketing to the effect that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. But the Court below taken the salary of the deceased as Rs. 2000/- per month and calculated the amount. Hence, the ends of justice would meet if Rs. 3,000/- per month taken as the wages of the deceased, as Ex. A6 shows that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus the net income of the deceased per annum comes to Rs 36,000/- (3,000x12=36,000). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 , 1/4th where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. In this particular case, the number of dependent family members are 4, hence, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and if deducted the amount of contribution towards family comes to Rs. 27,000/- (Rs.36,000x1/4=9000-36,000=27,000). As per the evidence of PW-1 the age of the deceased was 26 years and for the age of 26 years the relevant multiplier is 17 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR (supra-1). If applied the correct multiplier, the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 4,59,000/- (27,000x17=4,59,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium totaling to Rs. 4,79,000/-. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs. 4,79,000/-. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned among the claimants as fixed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129