IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3176 of 2003 and Cross Objections C.M.A. No.3176 of 2003: Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Nizamabad .. Appellant AND Bhoomavva and others .. Respondents Cross Objections: Between: Bhoomavva and another .. Cross Objectors AND The National Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Branch Manager, Nizamabad and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal and the cross objections are against the award in O.P. No.795 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, dated 20-05- 2003. Raja Goud was going in an auto No.AP 1T 3145 on 24-06-1999 and near Takli, the auto turned turtle resulting in injuries and fractures to Raja Goud and his ultimate death on 26- 06-1999 while undergoing treatment. Raja Goud was claimed to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month and his wife and daughter claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto. While the owner of the auto did not contest the claim, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and questioned the existence of a valid driving licence for the driver. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy were stated to have been violated and hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation. It examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eye witness P.W.2, corroborated by the documents and concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the auto driver. The Tribunal also opined that the deceased was aged about 50 years on the basis of Ex.A.3 post-mortem report and Ex.A.2 inquest report. It took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month with reference to the minimum wages. It deducted one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.1,333/- per month. It applied a multiplier of 11 with reference to II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and in addition to the loss of dependency of Rs.1,75,956/-, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. On the total of Rs.1,95,956/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. It directed apportionment of the compensation between the claimants. The insurer challenged the award contending that the compensation was awarded without any basis or evidence and the multiplier could have been only 7.68. The II Schedule could not have been taken recourse to in respect of the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants filed cross objections contending that the monthly income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.4,000/- and not Rs.2,000/- and Rs.15,000/- each should have been granted towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. Hence, they desired that the balance of compensation claimed by them also should be awarded. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. V. Sai Priya, learned counsel representing Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The findings of the Tribunal about the ownership of the offending vehicle, its subsisting insurance with the appellant and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent being the cause for the accident, remained unchallenged and have become final. The Tribunal computing the age of the deceased as 50 years with reference to the inquest report and post-mortem report cannot be faulted in the absence of any other evidence and the assessment in Exs.A.2 and A.3 being on the basis of the opinion of independent panchayatdars and a medical expert. As the claimants did not produce any evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased from toddy business, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in assuming his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- per month with reference to the minimum wages in vogue at that time. Deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is also in tune with the accepted norms and the question of the correctness of multiplier loses its relevance with reference to Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], under which even for a claim under Section 166, the appropriate multiplier applicable will be 13. If so, the loss of dependency should be enhanced by Rs.31,992/-, as the Tribunal applied only the multiplier of 11. The amount can be rounded off to Rs.32,000/- and the other amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium were in accordance with Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra). While the appeal against the quantum of compensation is untenable under the circumstances, the cross-objections are allowable only to the said extent of Rs.32,000/-. In view of the length of time from which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be restricted to 6 per cent per annum while proportionate costs shall follow suit. Accordingly, the award, dated 20-05-2003 in O.P. No.795 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Adilabad is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed accordingly without costs, while the cross-objections are allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-02-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298