HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1268 OF 2003 AND 3941 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A. No.3941 OF 2004: Respondents 1 to 4 filed MV OP No.7 of 2002 in the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Medak, claiming a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that Gantha Veerappa, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4, was employed in BHEL, Ramachandrapuram and that on 20-02-2000, when he was returning after completion of second shift on a cycle at 11-00 PM, a lorry bearing No.AP 23 T 5534, owned by the respondents 5 and 6 at different points of time, and insured with the appellant, dashed against Veerappa, resulting in his instantaneous death. It was also stated that Crime No.36 of 2000 was registered under Section 304-A IPC, against the driver of the lorry by P.S. Ramachandrapuram. 2. According to the respondents 1 to 4, the salary of the deceased was Rs.12,656/- per month and he was aged 45 years. The 5th respondent remained ex parte. The 6th respondent filed a counter denying the allegations as to the occurrence of accident, age and wages of the deceased. The actual contest of the matter was by the appellant herein, denying that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and disputed other facts pleaded by the claimants. Through its order, dated 30-06-2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,74,440/- as compensation under various heads with interest at 9% per annum. The same is challenged in this appeal. 3. Head the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. None appeared for the respondents 5 and 6. 4. It is, no doubt, true that an attempt was made by the appellant and the 6th respondent to dispute the very occurrence of the accident and denied the responsibility of the driver. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence before it, viz., depositions of PWs.1 to 3, the documentary evidence of Exs.A-1 to A-9 and deposition of RW-1 and Exs.B-1 to B-5, the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the death of the deceased occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. 5. So far as the determination of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the monthly emoluments of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- though the actual salary was Rs.12,656/-. Rs.4,000/- was deducted towards his personal expenditure. The loss of dependency for the claimants was taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. Multiplier 9.89 was adopted on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Bhagavan Das v.Mohd. Arif (AIR 1987 (2) ALT page 137). Rs.10,000/-was awarded to the 1st respondent towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to the claimants 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection. 6. The appellant contends that the amounts awarded under certain heads are excessive and they deserve to be slashed. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has taken the correct view of the matter and the compensation was determined in accordance with law. Further, even if there is any possibility to find fault with the award of sums within the loss of dependency, the fact remains that the compensation is otherwise liable to be enhanced in case, the multiplier as per schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act is applied. For a person of 45 years, the stipulated multiplier is 14. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9.89. Any excess as to the percentage of interest would also stand balanced on account of the lesser multiplier that was applied by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.1268 OF 2003: 6. O.P. No.242 of 2001 was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 - claimants for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability in the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy. Through its order, dated 18-12-2002, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- and apportioned the same among the claimants. It appears that this was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak, which decided MV OP No.7 of 2002 filed by the same claimants in relation to the same accident. The fact, however, remains that in its order, dated 30-06- 2004, in MV OP No.7 of 2002, the Tribunal directed that the amount, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the MV Act stands redressed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3941 of 2004 is dismissed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1248 of 2003 is dismissed as superfluous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 05, 2011. KTL