IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1321 of 2003 Between: Maloth Sarojini and others ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Dr. Padal Narayana and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1321 of 2003 ORDER: Appellants herein filed claim petition in O.P.No.351 of 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on account of the death of Bheemla @ Bheemla Naik (hereinafter referred to as the – ‘the deceased’), stating that on 26.03.1996 at about 9.45 p.m., while the deceased was coming from Ramchandrapalli thanda on his scooter bearing No.AP-25-A- 6740, a car bearing No.AP-25-A-6889, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his scooter from opposite direction resulting the death of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim by filing counters denying the allegations. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondent? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car, awarded Rs.6,37,188/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization as compensation to the appellants. Dissatisfied by the order of compensation passed, the present appeal is by the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that though the Tribunal rightly took the loss of dependency at Rs.43,192/- and applied multiplier ‘16’, but committed an arithmetical mistake in calculating as Rs.43,192/-x 16 = Rs.6,91,072/- instead the Tribunal noted it as Rs.6,04,688/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company fairly concedes the mistake crept in the order passed by the Tribunal. From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the Tribunal considered the loss of dependency being Rs.43,192/- and adopted the multiplier ‘16’ thereto. However, there crept an arithmetical mistake as Rs.43,192/- x 16 = Rs.6,91,072/-, instead the Tribunal noted it as Rs.6,04,688/-. Therefore, it is directed that the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency may be treated as Rs.6,91,072/-. So, the appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,91,072/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, totaling to Rs.7,23,572/-. Since the compensation awarded to the appellants exceeds the amount claimed by them and since the difference being marginal, they can be directed to pay the deficit court fee. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.7,23,572/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 12% per annum. From out of the difference amount i.e. Rs.86,384/-, appellant No.1 shall be entitled to Rs.36,384/- and appellant Nos.2 to 6 shall be entitled to Rs.10,000/- in addition to the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The appellants shall deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 CVRK