HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1428 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation granted in M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. 2. The application was filed for a claim of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Chandra in a motor accident. It was alleged that he along with others while travelling in an Allwyn Van bearing No. KA 05 A 6000 carrying some flowers, due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle, the deceased received injuries along with others and died. The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children, 4th and 5th petitioners are parents and 6th petitioner is the brother of the deceased. 3. According to the claim of the respondents/petitioners, the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per year and his age was said to be ‘24’ years. The factum of the incident and the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the vehicle is not disputed. The insurance of the vehicle is also not disputed. The lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,650/- per month and arrived at the annual income at Rs.19,800/- and deducted only a sum of Rs.2,800/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the approach of the lower Tribunal is not correct. Evidently, respondents 2 and 3 are minors and the 6th respondent is a brother, who is Manager and he cannot be said to be dependant on the deceased and the father of the deceased is also not very much aged and he has got his own earnings and according to the appellant 1/3rd has to be deducted from the earnings of the deceased. The contention of the counsel for the appellant appears to be correct and reasonable and therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, if a sum of 1/3rd is deducted, the contribution comes to Rs.1,060/- and it is fixed at Rs.1,100/-. The age of the deceased was said to be about 24 years and it also appears to be at a lower side, taking into consideration that already two children were born. Therefore, the multiplier to be applied is ‘17’. The total compensation comes to Rs.2,24,400/-. The petitioner is also entitled for non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- and as the petitioner has lost her husband, she is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards consortium. The total compensation petitioners are entitled to is Rs.2,49,400/-. The lower Tribunal granted interest at 9% per annum. But, however, it is reduced to 7.5% keeping in view the guidelines of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to cost. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:21.07.2011 INL