THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2707 OF 2002 DATED: 28-10-2009 Between: National Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, Moghal Courts, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And M.Narsimha & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 18-04-2002, in O.P.No.144 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants 1 to 3. None appears for the 4th respondent- owner of the vehicle. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-M.Sreenivas who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17-02-1999. The 1st claimant is the father; 2nd claimant is the mother and 3rd claimant is the sister of the deceased who died unmarried. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was returning from Jeedipally village on a scooter and when he reached a culvert at NH-7, a lorry bearing No.AP21 U 2007, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the scooter and dragged the same along with the lorry resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot due to head injury. 4. A case was registered in Cr.No.28 of 1999 against the driver of the lorry. The claimants contend that the deceased was aged 24 years and was doing business in the name of ‘Srinivasa General Stores’ at Seetamrampur, Bowenpally, Secunderabad and earning Rs.3000/- per month. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the applicants and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant, but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and awarded the same accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would mainly contend that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier ‘13’ instead of ‘7.74’ while assessing the loss of dependency. He would further contend that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% is excessive. 8. The finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that the appellant and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation is not seriously challenged. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- p.m. i.e., Rs.18,000/- p.a., which is reasonable. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was young man aged 24 years and was running a kirana shop, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased was estimated at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and applying the multiplier ‘13’, suitable to the age of the mother of the deceased, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.1,56,000/- (Rs.12,000/- X 13). It is not disputed that the second claimant, the mother of the deceased, was aged 45 years. The appropriate multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, the Act’) is ‘13’ and the same is correctly applied by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate but the claimants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate as per the Second Schedule of the Act. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,58,500/- (Rs.12,000/- X 13 + Rs.2500/-). Regarding the rate of interest, the interest at 12% is certainly on the higher side. Having regard to the reduced market rate of interest, on account of the economic recession, it is considered just and proper to award the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition, considering the fact that the amount of compensation is only Rs.1,58,500/- . The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th October, 2009 Tsy