THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2062 OF 2005 Dated: 17.02.2011 Between: Smt Kodati Kiranmai and another ... APPELLANT AND Marri Janardhan Reddy and others. ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2062 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the Award, dated 19.05.2005 in O.P No. 1105 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The claimants are the appellants herein, who filed the O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- on account of death of K.Ravinder Rao, who died in a road accident. On 26.07.2001 at about 9.00 A.M. while the deceased was proceeding to his working place at Penpahad from Suryapet on his scooter bearing No.AP-22-6724 and when he reached near Surya Plastic Industry, a lorry bearing No.AP-28-T-5823 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter. Due to which the deceased sustained fracture to his left leg of both bones and grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet and from there to Gayatri Nursing Home, Suryapet and where he succumbed to injuries on 16.08.2001. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of offending lorry. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants suffered mental agony and lost their dependency. Hence, they filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.1700,000/-. The first respondent-owner of the lorry and the second respondent – Insurance Company denied all the material allegations. The third respondent is mother of the deceased. All the respondents filed separate counters. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident is occurred on account of rash and negligent on the part of driver of the Crime Vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-28-T-5823? 2. That the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief?” To substantiate their case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,18,800/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4,949/- towards medical bills, in all a total compensation of Rs.10,35,479/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier of ‘11.32’ though the correct multiplier is ‘14’ as the deceased was 41 years at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not taking the full salary of the deceased though salary certificate of the deceased was produced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry and therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation. A perusal of the record, in particular Ex.A-4 salary certificate of the deceased, shows that the deceased was earning Rs.12,903/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, his income per month comes to Rs.8,602/-, but the Tribunal erred in taking his income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of the accident, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’. Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,45,136/- (8602 x 12 x 14). In addition to the above amount, the claimants are entitled to further sums of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, as awarded by the Tribunal, and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,65,136/- (1445136 + 10000 + 10000) . In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,35,749/- to Rs.14,65,136/- in the similar apportionment as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J FEBRUARY 17, 2011. YVL [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129