THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.246 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the order dated 29.04.2006 in O.P.No.497 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court) Siddipet, wherein the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.4,88,800/-. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 13.11.2001 around 6.30 p.m., when the deceased Laxma Reddy was coming from Ramunipatla village to Mandapally village on his TVS Champ bearing No.AP 23 A 4775, a Tipper bearing registration No.A.P. 17 6498, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, came on wrong side and dashed the vehicle of Laxma Reddy, as a result, he died on the spot in Mandapally village limits on Rajiv Rahadari. The sixth respondent is the owner and the appellant is the insurer of the Tipper. On a complaint, the police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle. The deceased was 40 years old on the date of accident. He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing sub-contracts, tractor management and agriculture. He was an LIC agent and also running a fair price shop. As the accident occurred during the course of employment of the driver of the sixth respondent, the sixth respondent and the appellant-insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. The sixth respondent remained ex parte. The appellant-insurance company filed counter inter alia stating that the deceased was driving the TVS Champ without having any valid license: that there is contributory negligence on his part; that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid licence and that the vehicle was not insured. 5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant-insurance company, but Ex.B.1- copy of the Policy was marked. 6. Taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.4,88,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit holding that the sixth respondent-owner and the appellant-insurer of the Tipper are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company filed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal wrongly took the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,600/-for assessing the loss of dependency, and the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier ‘12.50’ instead of applying ‘16’ since the age of the deceased was 40 years and the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is on higher side. Further, the interest awarded on the compensation is not tenable. 8. Heard the learned standing counsel for Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the record. 9. PW2, who is resident of Mandappaly village, deposed that on the date of accident, he was proceeding in an Auto along with his son from Shanigaram village and when Auto reached Shiva Sai Rice Mill on Rajiv Rahadari, the crime vehicle while proceeding behind the TVS champ, dashed the TVS champ of the deceased, who was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and the Tipper came on wrong side and hit the TVS Champ causing the accident. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper. 10. PW.1, who is wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was doing contract works, LIC agency, maintaining a tractor and he was doing agricultural work besides working as a fair price shop dealer, thus he was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. To that effect Exs.A.7 to A.10 and A.13 were marked. Ex.A.7 indicates that the deceased was having about 10 acres agricultural land. Exs.A 8 and A.9 indicate that the deceased was a fair price shop dealer and was earning commission. Taking into consideration the documentary evidence brought on record with regard to earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,600/-. The Tribunal in the absence of any proof regarding date of birth, relied on Exs.A.1 to A.4 to assess the age of the deceased as 40 years. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased out of Rs.3,600/- , and accordingly arrived at Rs.2,400/- per month towards contribution to the family, and thus, the total annual income comes to Rs.28,800/-. As far as application of ‘16’ multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has not committed any error since for the age group between 35 and 40 years, the proper multiplier is ‘16’ as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,60,600/- towards loss of dependency. (28,800 x 16=4,60,800/-). Further, the Tribunal granted interest at 7.5% per annum on total compensation based on the prevalent interest rate at that time. It is to be noticed that Rs.4,60,800/-was awarded towards loss of dependency, Rs.12,000/-was awarded towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. Thus the total comes to Rs.4,82,800/-. However, it appears the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the total amount of compensation as Rs.4,88,800/-. 11. In the above facts and circumstances the case, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not, in any way, warrant interference from this court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the M.A. C.M.A. is dismissed. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 01-07-2010 Stp