IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. NO.688 OF 2003 Between : Mahali Seetaravamma and others. .... APPELLANTS AND Alluri Gandhi Raju and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. NO.688 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 1995, dated 22.09.1999 on the file of the District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam. 2. The claimants filed M.V.O.P. seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on the account of death of the deceased, Mahali Ramanaraju, in the accident that occurred on 15.05.1994. Claimant No.1 is the wife; claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of accident, the deceased along with cleaner by name, Srinivasarao, was proceeding towards Cuttack from Goa in a lorry bearing registration No.AEK-1296, when the vehicle reached the National Highway No.5, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-U-797 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry, in which the deceased was proceeding, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. It is the case of the claimants that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that as the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as owner and driver of the lorry, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and respondent No.2-insurance company contested the claim. 5. The Tribunal formulated the necessary issues as to rash and negligence, the amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It may be noted that respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses, but filed Ex.B1-insurance policy. Based on Ex.A.5- notice issued by the Income Tax Officer to the deceased, under Ex.A.6-Form No.4-A in the name of the deceased, wherein the income of the deceased from business or avocation was mentioned as Rs.37,000/-, on which a tax of Rs.1400/- was collected, and on the ground that the income as mentioned in Ex.A.6 was not denied, the Tribunal relied on the said statement and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, his annual contribution to the family was taken as Rs.24,667/-. Thus the income is not in dispute in this appeal. The age of the deceased was taken as 45 years, which is also not in dispute. The Tribunal applied ‘10’ multiplier and on the basis of the aforesaid income, awarded Rs.2,47,000/- towards pecuniary loss. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards consortium; Rs.3000/- towards transportation and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. In all Tribunal the awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,000/-. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the amount awarded does not represent just compensation. He would further contend that although Ex.A.6 show the actual income of the deceased and the Tribunal computed the loss of earnings on the basis of the said document, the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier ‘10’. According to the learned counsel, the right multiplier should be ‘14’ as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS V DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. He would therefore, contend that the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced by applying the said multiplier. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same needs no interference. 9. It is not in dispute that Ex.A.6 is an official document and the same cannot be discarded for the purpose of computing the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 45 years. As held by the Apex Court in SARALA VARMA’S CASE, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the claimants, the right multiplier is ‘14’ against ‘10’ applied by the Tribunal. Applying the same, the contribution as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,667/- the pecuniary loss would be Rs.3,45,338/- (Rs.24,667 X 14). However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,47,000/- only. It is therefore, to be held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of a sum of Rs.98,338/- towards pecuniary loss in this appeal. 10. Learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum but limited for the period from the date of commencement of trial (20.07.1999) till realization and that the Tribunal also did not award any amount towards loss of estate. He would therefore, contend that the interest should have been paid from the date of petition, but not limited from the date of trial. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for granting interest only from the date of the trial. 11. Under Section 171 of the Mother Vehicles, Act, although it is the discretion of the Tribunal to award interest, such discretion has to be exercised on some principle. Normally interest should be awarded from the date of petition till the date of realization and there is no reason to deviate from the normal practice. Having regard to the same, it is to be held that the interest is liable to be paid from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal also should have awarded compensation towards loss of estate at least for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In the ultimate analysis it is to be held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for a sum of Rs.98,338/- (+) Rs.10,000/-, in total Rs.1,08,338/-. Since the compensation is enhanced in this appeal the interest at 6% per annum should be paid on the enhanced amount from the date of Judgment in this appeal i.e., on 30.07.2010 till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. 12. The award in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 1995 dated 22.09.1999 on the file of the District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J JULY 30, 2010. YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298