THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3304 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 10-08-2005 passed in OP No.221 of 2002 by the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. The claimants are the appellants herein. They filed the said OP seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of one Malli Krishnaiah in the motor accident that occurred on 29-11-2001 involving an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 16 W 8229. 2. The facts stated are:- on the fateful day, the deceased after supplying milk in textile mill reached Vaddipalem of Chillakur village at about 08.15 AM, at that time, the accident bus in question driven in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and without blowing horn dashed the deceased due to the impact of the same, the deceased received injuries and died on the spot. The first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are children of the deceased. It was stated by the claimants that the deceased was aged 35 years as on date of the accident and he was hale and healthy doing milk business besides agricultural work. According to the claimants, the deceased used to earn Rs.150/- per day i.e. monthly Rs.4,500/-. That due to the sudden and premature death of the deceased, the claimants lost their sole breadwinner of their family. To prove the claim of the claimants, the first claimant-wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, PW-2 is the eye- witness who was examined to speak about the manner in which the accident occurred and another witness as PW-3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A- 1 is copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the Inquest Report, Ex.A-4 is the charge-sheet. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence, as regards the culpability in causing the accident held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident bus in question and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.1,73,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed by the claimants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute as to the accident, date, place and nature of the accident and the deceased died in the said accident on account of the injuries sustained by him. In the light of Ex.A-1-copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2-Inquest Report and Ex.A-3 Copy of the Post Mortem Certificate, wherein it was stated that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, the finding as regards the culpability in causing the accident fixing on the driver of the accident bus in question does not warrant any interference by this Court. Coming to the question of grant of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was aged 35 years as on date of the accident and he was hale and healthy. It has further come in the evidence that he was doing milk business and also agricultural work, the monthly income can be taken at Rs.2,500/- which annually comes to Rs.30,000/-, out of which 1/3rd is to deducted towards his personal expenses and after deduction, the annual contribution comes to Rs.20,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable in this case, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘16’, and if applied the income comes to Rs.3,20,000/- (20,000 x 16). In addition to this, the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate totaling to Rs.3,40,000/-. However, the claim is made for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, the compensation now arrived at is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. In the result, the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above and the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 10-3-2011 Nrg THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3304 of 2005 March 10, 2011 NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129