HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 Date: 17-6-2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 Between The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, 4th Floor, Alkarim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and Smt. G.Sandhya and 6 others … Respondents/Petitioners M/s. Sarna Transport Corporation, Represented by Sri Rajender Singh Sarna, Hyderabad … Respondent/Respondent No.1 M.A.C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 Between Smt. G.Sandhya and 6 others … Appellants/Petitioners and M/s. Sarna Transport Corporation, Represented by Sri Rajender Singh Sarna, Hyderabad and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 Common Judgment: Since both these appeals do arise out of one and the same judgment and the parties being common, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Aggrieved against the award and decree dated 16-9-2005 passed in O.P.No.2250 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 is filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, whereas C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 is filed by the claimants. C.M.A.No.303 of 2008: 3. The claimants 1 to 7 filed the petition O.P.No.2250 of 2003 before the tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Gutta Dass Goud, aged 30 years. The tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record granted the compensation of Rs.5,89,000/- under all heads. Being aggrieved of the said finding, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed this civil miscellaneous appeal mainly urging that the award of compensation granted by the tribunal below is very excessive though the petitioners- claimants failed to prove the earnings of the deceased. 4. Now, the point for consideration is – whether the compensation granted by the tribunal below is excessive and exorbitant ? 5 . Point:- The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.2250 of 2003 and the petitioners in the said O.P., filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs and interest for the death of one Gutta Dass Goud, son of late Sathaiah, aged about 30 years. The factum of accident is not disputed. In order to claim the compensation, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined but Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked. As per Ex.B-1 insurance policy, the offending vehicle was valid insurance coverage on the date of accident. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A- 2 is the certified copy of charge-sheet. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid documents and the evidence of P.W.2, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP9W-8484 and it was valid insurance coverage on the date of accident. In the absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents, the tribunal below considering the oral evidence of P.W.2 and documents Exs.A-1 to A-3 correctly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP9W-8484 and I see no grounds to differ with the said finding of the tribunal below. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, the deceased was aged 30 years and was doing various businesses like running Anjana Hardware Shop at Mangalpally, running canteen at Koti Health Department, doing chits and finance business, sale and purchase of cattle and milk business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In proof of the same, the petitioners filed Ex.A-12 insurance policy of the vehicle owned by the deceased, Ex.A-13 copy of R.C. book of the vehicle of the deceased, Ex.A-10 chit amount payments and Ex.A-11 Peerless General Finance Certificate. Ex.A-15 is another document i.e., copy of pahani book evidencing that the deceased was having Ac.2-00 of land. Apart from the said documents, P.W.1 also filed Ex.A- 7 bill evidencing purchase of buffaloes etc. All these documents cumulatively proved that the deceased was having the earning capacity by doing different types of business. 8. Considering the documents placed by P.W.1, the tribunal below had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 30 years as per Ex.A-1 First Information Report and Exs.A-4 and A-5, inquest and post-mortem examination reports, respectively. Therefore, the relevant multiplier is ‘17’ even as per the decision in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1]. By applying the said multiplier and taking into account the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, the tribunal below granted an amount of Rs.5,44,000/- and in my view the same is reasonable. The tribunal below also granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, in total Rs.5,89,000/-. In my view, the award of the said compensation is very much justified in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the tribunal below. Accordingly, the award passed by the tribunal below is sustainable and I see no grounds to set aside the impugned award. 9. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006: 10. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in this appeal vehemently urged that the tribunal below failed to consider the income of the deceased though there is voluminous documentary evidence and therefore sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is 30 years but the tribunal below applied the multiplier ‘17’ as per the Second Schedule. Even as per the observations in SARLA VERMA’s case (supra) the relevant multiplier to a person of the age of 30 years is ‘17’. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the finding of the tribunal below while applying the multiplier ‘17’ and income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month by placing reliance on the documentary evidence filed by the claimants, however deducted only one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased. By following the judgment in SARLA VERMA’s case (supra), as the dependant family members of the deceased are 4 to 6, one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If we applied the said principle and if one- fourth is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per year and if the same is multiplied by the relevant multiplier ‘17’ it comes to Rs.6,12,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- granted by the tribunal below is enhanced to Rs.6,12,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and twelve thousand only). The other findings of the tribunal below regarding granting of compensation under the other heads such as Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection are sustainable. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and fifty seven thousand only). The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand only) now granted in this appeal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 13. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. No costs. 14. In the result, C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 17th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1017 of 2006 (Common Judgment) 17th June, 2011. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121