HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1166, 1246, 1303, 1377, 1462, 1497 OF 2005 AND 3410 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: All the appeals arise out of a common accident, whereunder the deceased persons Nageswar Rao, Manohar, Ramaswamy Naidu, Sakinala Narsaiah , Srinivasa Rao and Papa Rao have died. 2. The appeals M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1166, 1246, 1303, 1377, 1462 and 1497 of 2005 were filed by the Insurance Company against the orders in O.P.Nos.554, 560, 617, 618, 558, 550 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal District Judge at Khammam respectively, whereas the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.3410 of 2011 is filed by the petitioners in O.P.No.560 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Khammam, questioning the quantum of compensation. 3. Parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Tribunal. 4. According to the case of the petitioners, on 25.04.2002 at about 5.30 A.M., the driver of Car bearing No.AP 9 T 3023 possessed by the Minister for Roads and Buildings of State Government of Andhra Pradesh started from Gandugulapdu village of Dammapeta Mandal in order to go to Hyderabad via Khammam, the escort jeep boarded by the escort personnel bearing No.AP 9T 3471 followed the car of the Minister and when the car reached Khammam Town by 10.40 A.M., the oil tanker bearing No.KA 02 B 4662 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction without any control and in the process of overtaking an auto, came towards right side of the road. On noticing the same, the driver of Car bearing No.AP 9 T 3023 took his car extreme left side of the road going on the margin of metal portion, whereas the escort jeep which was behind that car was hit by the said tanker, causing instantaneous death of five police personnel and another. 5. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the tanker respectively, remained ex parte, whereas the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, filed counter denying the averments in the petitions, putting the petitioners to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker and further submitted that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted compensation as shown below: Sl.No. O.P.No. Name of the Deceased Occupation of deceased Salary of deceased (Per Month) Rs. Age of deceased Multiplier applied Q u a n t u m of compensation (Rs.) 01. 554 of 2002 Nageswar Rao Police Constable 6000/- 38 16 7,85,000/- 02. 560 of 2002 N.Manohar Assistant Sub Inspector of Police 9600/- 48 12 9,00,600/- 02. 617 of 2002 Ramaswamy Naidu Attender 7370/- 40 15 8,99,000/- 03. 618 of 2002 Narsaiah Police Constable 6000/- 40 15 7,37,000/- 04. 558 of 2002 Srinivasa Rao Constable 5386/- 33 17 7,49,360/- 05. 550 of 2002 Papa Rao Constable 7016/- 45 13 7,97,000/- 7. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 8. POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and the cause of death of the deceased persons and the negligence is concerned, there is not of much dispute. The learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1166, 1246, 1303, 1377, 1462 and 1497 of 2005 strongly contends that the lower Tribunal has not taken into consideration the deductions in the salaries of the deceased persons and also the multiplier, which has to be applied. But, as can be seen from the awards passed by the lower Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the salary certificates issued by the competent authorities and it has taken into consideration the deductions of 1/3rd and applied multiplier. It has not taken into consideration even the future earnings. 9. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the calculations arrived at by the Tribunal below cannot be faulted and also taking into consideration the age of the deceased persons, the multipliers applied are also reasonable. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the appeals. 10. So far as the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.3410 of 2011 is concerned, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons and also considered the salary at reasonably the higher rate and applied the correct multiplier and the compensation, which was granted is Rs.9,00,600/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, it cannot be said that the compensation is not just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:19.12.2011 INL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298