HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4545 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 7th July 2004 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 865 of 1995 filed by the appellants-claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of one S. Latchaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 26.2.1995 at abut 7.00 AM while the deceased was proceeding from his residence to Midhani Company for attending the job and when he reached to DRDO Township, Entrance gate, one Hero Honda vehicle bearing No AP 11C 1686 came with high speed driven by its driver and dashed against the deceased from the back side, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries on his right leg and head and when he was shifted to General Hospital he was operated later he was shifted to NIMS for further treatment. As such he filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on various heads. After his examination he died as such claimants 2 to 5 were brought on record. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, claimants filed CMA No. 2008 of 1999 and in turn this Court remitted the case by directing the appellant to examine the doctor who treaed S. Latchaiah and issued disability certificate. Respondents 1 being owner of the accident vehicle remained ex-parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 11C 1686 and taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, especially the evidence of PW-2 who issued Ex. A-10 disability certificate assessing the disability 100% awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of the amount into the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted the entire claim amount and it failed to appreciate the evidence on record and it failed to consider the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. He also submitted that the court below ought to have awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- at least on the head of pain and suffering and as um of Rs. 25,000/- under the loss of amenities in life. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 11C 1686 by it driver, the accident occurred and due to which, the claimant sustained fracture of right color bone and fracture to both legs and he sustained head injury and also injury on his spinal cord and after filing the claim petition he died and as such claimants were brought on record. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, according to PW-2 the deceased worked as Senior Security Guard in Misra Dhatu Nigam Limited, a Government of India Enterprise and he retired on 31.8.1996 on superannuation and he had competed 58 years. Ex. A-11 is the salary certificate issued by the company and his salary was Rs. 5,229.50 ps per month. Taking into consideration Ex. A11, the salary certificate, earnings of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 5,200/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 62,400/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs. 41600/- ( 62,400 x 1/3 = 20,800 - 62,400 = 41,600) and the relevant multiplier for the age of 58 years is 9 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court report in Salara Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and if applied the amount comes to Rs. 3,74,400/- and an amount of Rs. 45,000/- is granted towards past past loss of earnings for 9 months totaling to Rs. 4,19,400/- (3,74,400 +45,000 = 4,19,400). As the claim is only for Rs. 4,00,000/-, the amount now awarded is restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/-. 6. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Court below from 1,65,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) scale 129