HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1744 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award, dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1509 of 1997 on the ground that the compensation granted is inadequate and thus seeking enhancement. 2. The appellants/claimants are legal representatives of the deceased N. Hanumanth Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24/25.07.1997 at Tirumalghiri, Secunderabad on account of rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing No. AIA 3435 which dashed the TVS moped on which the deceased was proceeding. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the second respondent-United India Insurance Company and basing on the material placed before it, the Tribunal below categorically held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the said ambassador car and the respondent No.1- owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, which finding became final since it was not challenged by the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. 4. We are only concerned with the quantum of compensation, since it was put to challenge by the appellants-claimants stating that it is grossly inadequate and not calculated in accordance with law. There is no force in the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the deceased N.Hanumanth Rao is Goldsmith by profession and the income of the deceased is Rs.6,300/- per month as mentioned in Ex.A.9-income certificate which is issued by the General Secretary of Goldsmith’s Society and the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the said amount. According to me, the said certificate has no authenticity regarding the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal rightly considered the income at Rs.3,000/- per month taking into consideration, the fact that the deceased is a goldsmith. There is also no force in the contention that the date of birth of the deceased which is mentioned in the transfer certificate ought to have taken into consideration by the Tribunal below. The appellants themselves mentioned in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 40 years on the date of the accident. Further in Ex.A.5 certified copy of postmortem certificate filed by the claimants, it is mentioned that the deceased was aged about 40 years on the date of his death. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased as 40 years on the date of his death. 5. However, the Tribunal committed an error in selecting the multiplier as 12.79 as per the judgment in MOHD.ARIF v BHAGWANDAS. The Tribunal also not justified in not making deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As per recent judgment of the Apex Court in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the appropriate multiplier is 15 and the deduction towards personal and living expenses is ¼, since the appellants are five in number. 6. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-, and his annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-, and after deducting 1/4th i.e. Rs.9,000/- towards personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.27,000/- and to arrive at the loss of dependency, the said amount has to be capitalized with multiplier 15 which comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 15). This apart, the appellants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rs.4,05,000/- + 5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- +Rs.10,000/- ). The interest granted by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side, it is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal in its award granted an amount of Rs.2,54,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the enhancement would be Rs.1,71,000/- (Rs.4,25,000/- minus Rs.2,54,000/-). Out of total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-, the first claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- which includes the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted to her towards loss of consortium, the appellants-claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and the appellants-claimants 4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each. 7. With the above enhancement in the compensation and the reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 01.04.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1744 OF 2001 Dated: 01.04.2010 [1] 2009(2) L.S. 29 (S.C.)