IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.937 OF 2007 Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant AND Eturi Annapurna & 4 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.937 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.08.2006, passed in O.P.No.21 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in part and granted compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in O.P.No.21 of 2006. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Eturi Srinivas in road accident occurred on 13.06.2005. Claimant No.1 is the widow, claimants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Eturi Srinivas. On 13.06.2005, Eturi Srinivas along with some employees of Orient Cement Factory, Devapur, was travelling from Devapur to Mancherial in a company hired jeep bearing No.AP 01U 6963 to catch Telangana Express at Mancherial. On reaching Salpala Vagu at Devapur, a tipper bearing No.AP 01T 8995 loaded with coal came in high speed, driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep. As a result, eight persons including Eturi Srinivas met with incidental death. A case in Crime No.18 of 2005 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC came to be registered against the driver of the tipper by the Station House Officer, Devapur Police Station. Eturi Srinivas was aged about 40 years and was working as a Senior Burner in Orient Cement Factory, Devapur, getting a salary of Rs.16,230/- per month. According to the claimants, he was contributing his entire earnings to the family. The driver, owner and the insurer are liable to pay the compensation. The driver and the insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The driver took the plea that he cautiously drove the tipper and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The insurer took the plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and the amount claimed by the claimants was at high side. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-01- T-8995 by its Driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 4. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked. On behalf of the insurer, no ocular evidence was adduced, but a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 5. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper and that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation by order, dated 23.08.2006. The said order is assailed in this Appeal filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal enhanced the actual earnings of the deceased by 20% to 25% without there being any basis and, therefore, the compensation awarded to the claimants is required to be reduced considerably. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants supported the order impugned in the appeal. 8. The issue that calls for adjudication is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate? 9. Indisputably, the deceased was an employee of Orient Cement Factory, Devapur, and earning salary of Rs.16,230/- per month as on the date of the incident. After deducting statutory deductions, his net monthly income can be arrived at Rs.15,000/-. His contribution to the family after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his personal and living expenses can be arrived at Rs.10,000/- per month. The annual contribution at the rate indicated above can be taken at Rs.1,20,000/-. The deceased was aged about 49 years as on the date of death. Therefore, the proper multiplier to be adopted as per the decision in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is 12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.14,40,000/- apart from Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant/insurer failed to make out any valid ground for interference with the order impugned in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. fails and it is hereby is dismissed. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 21st December, 2010 KL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.937 OF 2007 (Judgment delivered by BSSR, J) December 21, 2010. KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298