HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.965 of 2006, CMA No.2055 of 2006 and CMA No.2680 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these three appeals are filed against the common order dated 19.09.2005 passed in O.P.No.322 of 2002 and O.P.No.323 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. CMA No.965 of 2006 is filed by the claimants in O.P No.323 of 2002. The said O.P was filed by the claimants/appellants seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Abbaiah in the Motor Accident that occurred on 31.07.2001 involving oil tanker lorry bearing registration No.AP 16T 4978. CMA.No.2055 of 2006 is filed by the Insurance Company granting compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with 9% interest per annum to the appellants in CMA No.965 of 2006. CMA.No.2680 of 2006 is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.322 of 2002 wherein the claimants in the said O.P were granted compensation of Rs.5,66,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 3. Since all these appeals are connected and these appeals arise out of common order, passed in O.P.No.322 of 2002 and O.P.No.323 of 2002, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. For the purpose of deciding these appeals, facts in CMA No.965 of 2006 filed by the claimants in O.P.No.323 of 2002 are adverted to. 5. The facts stated are:- On the fateful day, the deceased and another person by name Koteswar at about 8.15 PM were walking on the extreme left side of the road side by side, at that time, the oil tanker in question came in high speed in rash and negligent manner from Jangaon towards Bachannapet and dashed against the said persons due to which they sustained injuries, that the deceased Abbaiah sustained fractures of pelvis, head, chest, ribs and other injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangaon and from there to MGM Hospital, Warangal and finally to NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. He succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. It was stated that as on date of the accident, the deceased was 30 years and was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing maistry work, that he was the bread-winner of the family and therefore the claimants made a claim for Rs.6,00,000/-. To prove the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW.2 besides, three other witnesses and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-18. Ex.A-1 is the copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the copy of Charge-sheet, Ex.A-9 is the copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A-10 is the copy of Post-mortem report, Ex.A-11 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, Ex.A- 15 is the death certificate of the deceased Abbaiah. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the culpability in causing the accident, held that the driver of the oil tanker lorry in question was at fault and accordingly as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed this appeal. Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company also filed the above noted appeal CMA.No.2055 of 2006. 6. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. To prove the accident, PW.3 – eye-witness was examined. He categorically stated the manner in which the accident occurred and the deceased and another person by name Koteswar sustaining injuries in the said accident. The police after investigation, filed charge sheet Ex.A-2,held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker in question. Since the evidence of the witness examined remained un-contradicted and also in the light of the Exs.A-1 to A-18, finding of the Tribunal in fixing the culpability on the part of the driver of the oil tanker lorry in question cannot be interfered with by this Court. 8. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the claimant was doing maistry work and earning sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and was aged 30 years as on date of his death, and therefore, his income can be safely fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month, which annually comes to Rs.36,000/- and from this amount 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to Rs.24,000/- (36,000 – 12,000). The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘17’ and if the same is applied, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. It is to be noticed that the deceased had to put up with the trauma and he has taken treatment for his injuries in different hospitals before he could succumbed to the injuries. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Jangaon who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased found various external injuries on the body of the deceased as detailed in Column 10, marked as Ex.A-14. The doctor was of the opinion that the death caused due to sustaining of injuries on chest wall, liver and right lung collapse. Since the deceased was bedridden taking treatment for over a period of one month, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Ex.A-18 are the bunch of medical bills amounting to Rs.40,810/- which the claimants have incurred and they are also entitled to the said amounts besides Rs.20,000/- towards the two conventional heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Hence the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss of dependency, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.40,810/- towards medical bills and also an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the two conventional heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate, totalling to Rs.5,68,810/- which is rounded of to Rs.5,69,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case cited supra. 9. In the result, the impugned award in so far as it relates to O.P.No.323 of 2002 is modified accordingly and the appeal in CMA.No.965 of 2006 is allowed in part. 10. For the reasons stated above, CMA.No.2055 of 2006 and CMA.No.2680 of 2006 are dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 10, 2011 NRG HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.965 of 2006, MACMA No.2055 of 2006 and MACMA No.2680 of 2006 March 10,2011 NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129