THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1884 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 03.07.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.2 of 2000, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,16,600/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.2,25,000/- made by the petitioners therein for the death of the deceased-Shaik Abdul Sattar Vali, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 8.8.1996 at 6-30 hours, on NH-9, Dorakunta village, Kodada Rural P.S., due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the mini van, bearing registration No.AP 16U 7372, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. The appellant is the insurer of the offending van, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the claimants and respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending van. 4. This is a case of death in a road accident. The method and the manner in which the accident had occurred is not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum Rs.1,16,600/- for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the deceased was working as cleaner and his monthly income was assessed at Rs.1,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident, by taking into consideration the age of the mother as 50 years, after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses and by applying the right multiplier ‘7’, the total loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.54,600/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,16,600/- was awarded towards compensation. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the said amounts. The only dispute is with regard to the additional amount of Rs.50,000/- granted under no fault liability. Therefore, from the total compensation of Rs.1,16,600/-, the additional amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was granted towards no fault liability, has to be deducted. 8. Further, it is to be seen that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. But, as per the decision rendered by the apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DTC[1], it should be Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.3,000/- more is to be added to the total amount of compensation. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded comes to (Rs.1,16,600/- (+) Rs.3,000/- (-) Rs.50,000/-) Rs.69,600/-. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, reducing the total amount of compensation from Rs.1,16,600/- to Rs.69,600/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand six hundred only). In all other aspects, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1884 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121