HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3139 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.76 of 1999 dated 22-07-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Appellants, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased Gaddam Yadaiah, respectively, are claimants, respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the lorry, respectively, involved in the accident are respondent Nos.1 to 3, respectively, in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 27-10-1997 while the deceased and one Kummari Ramaiah (PW.2) were going from CSP-1 to 5 incline to attend a funeral, at about 5-00 PM, near VTC-I Office, 4-Incline gadda, Godavari Khani, lorry bearing No.AP-9-U-4192 belonging to respondent No.2 being driven by its driver, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against the deceased from his backside and on account of that deceased suffered head injuries and other grievous injuries and on the next day evening he succumbed to the injuries in the Area Hospital, Godavari Khani. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 42 years, working as Coal-Cutter in GDK-2-A Incline of S.C.C. Limited, Godavari Khani and earning a sum of Rs.84,946/- per annum. Hence, claimants claimed a sum of Rs.8,02,329/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.3 – the United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident was caused by the 1st respondent- driver by his rash or negligent driving of the vehicle ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To substantiate their claim, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking a copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B-1 with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal holding that deceased was earning Rs.240/- a day for 27 days in a month and treating him as aged 46 years and taking the multiplier 10, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,48,400/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this appeal. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 10. Insurance company has not filed any appeal. Thus, there is no dispute about the liability of the insurance company. Hence, the only question that has to be decided is quantum of compensation. There was no authentic evidence with regard to age of the deceased as the evidence of PW.3, Office Superintendent, GDK-2-Incline, SCC Limited, revealed that deceased joined in service in 1976 and at that time he (deceased) was aged 24 years. Thus, Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 46 years. Hence, the contention of the claimants that as the postmortem examination revealed that deceased was aged 42 years, Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 42 years, cannot be accepted. It was the duty of the claimants to produce authentic evidence with regard to age of the deceased. On the other hand, evidence of PW.3, who was examined on behalf of the claimants, itself revealed that deceased was aged around 46 years as arrived at by the Tribunal, and therefore, age of the deceased can be taken around 46 years, as such, Tribunal applied multiplier ‘10’ as per the decision in BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1]. But, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2], Multiplier ‘12’ is to be applied and on account of possibility of enhancement of future earnings, as the deceased was only 46 years old, at least 1/4th amount, out of the total income of the deceased, has to be added to his income and as the dependants are more than four, only 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted out of the total income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 11. Thus, if 1/4th of the amount out of the total income of the deceased is added to his income of Rs.77,760/-, annual income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.97,200/- (Rs.77,760/- + Rs.19,440/-) and out of the same, if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.72,900/- per annum. If the annual income of Rs.72,900/- is capitalized with multiplier ‘12’, it comes to more than Rs.8,50,000/- towards loss of dependency alone and the claim of the claimants is only Rs.8,02,329/-. 12. Considering the circumstances, I hold that claimants are entitled to the entire compensation they claimed i.e., Rs.8,02,329/- (Rupees eight lakhs and two thousand and three hundred and twenty nine only) and it is accordingly awarded. However, as per the latest pronouncements, rate of interest can be at 6% per annum. As such, rate of interest is fixed at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of O.P. till realization. It is further ordered that apportionment of the compensation shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank for a period of one year after the same is deposited into Court and thereafter the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 30, 2010. PV [1] 1987(2)ALT 137 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298