IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.192 OF 2001 BETWEEN M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. …APPELLANT AND R. T. Ram and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: M/s. S. Agasthya Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal by the insurance company questions the award of the IV Additional District Judge – cum – Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.150 of 1997 dated 15.10.1999. 2. A batch of three OP’s was considered together by the tribunal below as they arose out of a single accident dated 05.11.1996. The said three OP’s are instituted as follows: In O.P.No.150 of 1997, out of which the present appeal arises, relates to the claim made by the dependants of the deceased Smt. Subhadra Bai alias Pullamma, R/o. Kamalapadu, wherein it is pleaded the she along with others boarded a transport Van bearing No. AP 23 TR 467 and while traveling, a lorry bearing No. ADM 506 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and ignoring the headlights put up by the van driver and the narrow bridge which the vehicle had to negotiate, came and dashed against the van resulting in the death of two persons on the spot and serious injuries to one of the said occupants. The injured occupant has filed O.P.No.146 of 1998 whereas another O.P.No.645 of 1997 was filed with respect to the compensation for the other deceased. So far as the present OP is concerned, a claim for Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the children of the deceased, who are respondents herein. 3. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal found the issue of rash and negligent having been established against the offending vehicle, it proceeded to determine the compensation in each of the three OP’s. So far as the present OP is concerned, the tribunal found that the deceased was aged 55 years and her income was taken as Rs.1,000/- per month notionally and deducting 2/3rd thereof as the contribution and applying multiplier ‘11’ relevant for the age of 55 years dependency of Rs.1,32,000/- was arrived at and towards loss of estate the conventional sum of Rs.15,000/- was added thereby the total compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- was allowed. The tribunal also allowed interest thereon at 12% per annum. 4. In the present appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contends firstly that all the claimants, who are respondents herein, are majors and married children of the deceased. They, therefore, cannot qualify as dependants and as such, the compensation as arrived by the tribunal is unsustainable. He also contends that the multiplier ‘11’ applied by the tribunal is on a much higher side and at best the multiplier ‘7’ would be appropriate. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that merely because the children of the deceased are married it cannot be said that they are not entitled to any compensation as they have lost their mother as a result of rash and negligent action of the driver of the offending vehicle, which ought to be taken into consideration and the dependency of the deceased was rightly calculated by the tribunal. Learned counsel also supports the multiplier ‘11’ as it is based on second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 6. It is evident that the deceased was a widow aged 55 years survived by children, who are claimants/respondents herein. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that merely because they are majors and married does not mean that they are not legal heirs or dependants of the deceased. The wrongful act and torturous liability of the offending vehicle, therefore, has to be quantified in terms of loss of dependency and in that view of the matter, the claim made by the respondents cannot be said to be unsustainable. So far as multiplier applied by the tribunal is concerned, no doubt, the tribunal went by second schedule to the Act. However, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARALA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] the standardized multiplier after taking into consideration several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the second schedule to the Act would show that for the age group of 51 to 55 years multiplier ‘11’ is appropriate. The tribunal below having correctly applied the said multiplier, I am not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded. However, the interest decreed by the tribunal below at 12% is on a higher side and as the Honourable Supreme court and this Court has been consistently awarding lesser rate of interest at 7.5%, the interest awarded under the impugned award also shall stand modified to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent of interest decreed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 3, 2009 DSK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009(1) DECISIONS TODAY (SC) 292