THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3246 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award, dated 13.05.2003 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge – cum - Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.2051 of 2001. Second respondent- insurance company, is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 23.07.2001 at about 4.00 a.m., while the deceased was sleeping in the road margin in front of Hyderabad Race Course Grounds, lorry bearing No.AAA.8455 came in a rash and negligent manner hit him, on account of that he sustained injuries and died. The petitioners in the O.P., who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- and the Court below granted Rs.1,38,600/-. Questioning the quantum, the present appeal is filed. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident caused death to the deceased that took place on 23.07.2001 at 4.00p.m. on the road in front of Hyderabad Race Course, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAA-8455? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-insurance company. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the Court below is on higher side? 6. The evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased is that the deceased was working as Supervisor with the contractor M/s. Satya Sai Man Powers, in the Race Course at Hyderabad and was getting salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. P.W.2 labour contractor deposed that the deceased was working as Supervisor and was getting Rs.3,500/-per month. The Tribunal did not accept that the deceased was working as Supervisor, perhaps the said finding is right, as in case the deceased was working as Supervisor in some organization, he might not sleep on the road. The daily income of the deceased is taken as Rs.40/- a day, which cannot be said to be on higher side and multiplier ‘11’ is applied, as his age is taken as 55. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier ‘8’ is appropriate for the age of 55. But as per schedule, for the age 50 to 55 years, multiplier ‘11’ is applicable and for the age 55 to 60 multiplier ‘8’ is applicable. As approximate age of the deceased is taken on the basis of the post- mortem report and on the basis of the ages of the claimants, as the wife of the deceased is shown as 42 years old and elder child is shown as 18 years old, perhaps age of the deceased might not have been more than 55 years. As such, applying multiplier ‘11’ cannot be said to be inappropriate. As such, towards loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.1,05,600/- as awarded by the Court below and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an amount of Rs.15,000/-was awarded to the first petitioner-claimant towards loss of consortium and further Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and other expenses a sum of Rs.3,000/- was awarded. Thus, out of these heads, an amount of Rs.33,000/- was awarded which is on higher side and from out of this amount, an amount of Rs.23,000/- has to be deducted. Hence, after deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,100/-. The C.M.A. is accordingly ordered. CROSS-OBJECTIONS: The rate of interest shall be at 7.5% per annum instead of 9% as awarded by the Court below. In the cross-objections, the petitioners claimed that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Even as per Minimum Wages Act, the income has to be taken as Rs.2,200/-. First of all, the deceased was not doing any work, he was sleeping on the road at the time of accident. As such, the income at Rs.40/- a day taken by the Court below cannot be said to be arbitrary. As such, it is not a case for enhancement of compensation further. The cross-objections are accordingly dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 25th June 2010, Rns