IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2961 of 2004 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Sri P.Ammanna and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2961 of 2004 ORDER: This is an appeal filed by the insurance company assailing the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2003 passed in O.P.No.1971 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short – ‘the Act’), claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of Smt P.Venkatamma (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident. 2. The facts, in brief, of the case are as follows. On 18.08.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. the tractor bearing No.AP- 28-U_326 and trailer bearing No.AP-28-U-327 was proceeding from Vanasthalipuram to Hayatnagar driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached near Sushma theatre, it dashed against the deceased due to which she sustained multiple and head injuries and died on the spot. Claimants are husband and son of the deceased. They claim that the deceased was earning Rs.2,100/- per month as a labourer and was contributing the same to the family. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle i.e. the 3rd respondent herein remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent opposed the petition after obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Act. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the deceased P.Venkatamma died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s tractor? (2) Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During trial, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st respondent-claimant was examined as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the insurance Company, no witnesses were examined but a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The Tribunal, holding that the deceased died in the accident that took place on 18.08.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,98,500/- to the claimants with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act the Tribunal applied the Second Schedule to the Act, which is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163-A of the Act, and so the computation of compensation is totally wrong. It is also contended that since the deceased is the wife and the claimant is the husband, the age of the husband of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for computation of compensation, but not the age of the deceased; and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also highly excessive. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants contended that since it is a case of death the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier as given in the Second Schedule to the Act and there are no grounds to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. 5. The point for consideration is to what compensation the claimants are entitled? 6. There is no dispute with regard to the factum of the death of the deceased. The only dispute is with regard to the computation of compensation. The Tribunal was right in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per annum which, after deducting 1/3rd towards living expenses, comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has, by considering the age of the deceased to be 45 years by the time of her death, applied the multiplier ‘15’ given in the Second Schedule to the Act, which is applicable to claim petitions filed under Section 163-A of the Act. But, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, since it is a case of death of wife and the claimant being a husband, it is the age of the husband of the deceased that is to be taken into consideration for computation of compensation, but not the age of the deceased. The age of the 1st respondent-claimant as shown in the application filed under Section 166 of the Act is 50 years. For the age of 50 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] for determination of compensation in claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act is ‘13’. So, the compensation under the head of loss of life and future earnings is Rs.12,000/- x 13 = Rs.1,56,000/-. The 1st respondent-claimant, being the husband of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium as granted by the Tribunal. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and I also do not wish to interfere with the paltry amounts granted by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1,500/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 7. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- + Rs.15,000 + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,500/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.1,84,500/-. 8. The request of the appellant with regard to the rate of interest is also considered and the interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 9. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed-in-part and the award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.1,84,500/- in favour of the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and with proportionate costs before the Tribunal. The amount reduced in this appeal shall be given effect to the 2nd respondent-claimant. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 17th June 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104