THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4753 of 2004 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 30.06.2004, passed in O.P.No.893 of 2003 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Redhills, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. On 08.1.2003 while the husband of the claimant, by name Ramulu, was proceeding on his bicycle and reached near Chilkalguda Cross-road, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5572, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed his bicycle, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the same. The claimant filed O.P.No.893 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-against respondent Nos.1 and 2-APSRTC. Both the respondents filed common written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,99,900/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal along with CMA MP No.14826 of 2004, in which she sought to substitute the amount claimed in O.P.No.893 of 2003 as Rs.4,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,00,000/-. This Court allowed the said CMAMP today. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal has taken multiplier ‘7.68’ for the age group of 50 years instead of ‘13’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and awarded less compensation to the claimant. 5. The material on record discloses that the deceased Ramulu was aged 50 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month by making and supplying empty sweet boxes. Though the claimant produced Ex.A6-income certificates, 6 in number, issued by different shop owners, the Tribunal disbelieved the same and took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. Since the accident occurred in the year 2003, he might have earned at least a sum of Rs.3,600/-per annum and annually at Rs.43,200/-. After deducing 1/3rd from it towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.28,800/-. As per SARALA VERMA’s case (1 supra), the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 50 years is ‘13’, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, and thereby, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.28,800X13=3,74,400/-. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate as awarded by the Tribunal should be added to it and that a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium is awarded instead of Rs.5,500/-as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.3,94,400/- is awarded to the claimant. The order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The appellant- claimant is directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced claim amount in CMA MP No.14826 of 2004. 6. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:23.09.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121