THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 215 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 08.03.2010 in Original Petition No417 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby the respondents 1 to 3/claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- against the appellant and the fourth respondent herein, for the death of one Boina Ganesh, who is son of the first respondent and brother of the respondents 2 and 3, in a road accident that occurred on 28.3.2008 at 9.00 PM near Gurudwar, Indirapoor, Varni Road, Nizamabad due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Crane bearing No. AP31AG 1511. 2. Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is being taken up for disposal. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal applied wrong multiplier in calculating the compensation. Age of deceased was taken into consideration by the Tribunal for the purpose of applying suitable multiplier. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘18’ in estimation of the compensation towards loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the respondents did not deny about the application of wrong multiplier. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. So, age of the parents has to be taken into consideration for deciding the multiplier. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra[1], wherein it is held thus: “Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16.” Even according to both the counsel appearing for parties, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of first respondent/mother is ‘14’. The loss of dependency is estimated at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3/ claimants are entitled for Rs.24,000/- x 14 = Rs.3,36,000/- towards compensation for loss of dependency. Further, the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all, the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,41,000/-. 4. From out of total compensation amount of Rs.3,41,000/-, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each, and the first respondent is entitled for the remaining amount. 5. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 1.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 215 OF 2011 1.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 215 OF 2011 1.2.2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant/R.2 And Boini Balamma & others …Respondents [1] (1996) 4 SCC 362.