THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1391 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard. 2. The appeal is filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam in O.P.No.924 of 1998, where-under the petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased Narayana Reddy, claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. According to them on 11.05.1998 when the deceased was returning from the agricultural fields at about 8.00 A.M., a scooter bearing No.AEX 6297 driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and died. The deceased is said to be aged 50 years as on the date of death and was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The 3rd respondent is said to be Insurance company and all the respondents were liable for the compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and 2nd respondent though filed counter, did not participate in the trial and claimed that the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the scooter, the earning capacity and also the dependency of the petitioners. 3. On consideration of the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,17,000/-. The factum of the incident and the cause of the death were proved from the evidence of PW.1. The insurance company has not filed any appeal questioning the award. The lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Coolie and fixed at Rs.1,200/- and after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, the contribution was fixed at Rs.9,600/-. The lower Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘9’. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the recent Judgment of the Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the multiplier for persons aged above 50 years is ‘11’, whereas the counsel for the appellant contends that the multiplier should be ‘13’. However, even from the own showing of the claimants, the age of the deceased was 50 and the deceased to show lesser age cannot be ignored. Therefore, taking into consideration the age of the deceased being above 50, the multiplier ‘11’ is applied and consequently, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.1,05,600/-. 5. The sum of Rs.15,000/- was also granted towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and non-pecuniary damages were also granted to a tune of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards medical expenses, funeral and transport charges. 6. The total compensation petitioner is entitled to is Rs.1,40,600/-. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the mother. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 13.07.2011 INL [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129