IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1031 OF 2007 BETWEEN The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …APPELLANT AND Soyam Pushpavathi and six others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. KOWTURI VINAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the insurance company, which appeared as respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.287 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam. 2. A claim for compensation was made by the claimants 1 to 6, who are respondents 1 to 6 herein, seeking compensation of Rs.10,99,676/- on account of death of husband of the first claimant and the father of the claimants 2 to 6. The accident in question took place on 25.10.2002 when the deceased aged about 55 years suffered serious injuries, as the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 9 W 9964 collided with the vehicle driven by the deceased bearing No. AEH 2389. The deceased suffered so serious fatal injuries for which a case in Cr.No.148 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle by Police Station, Palvoncha. In the claim petition, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked whereas the insurance company led evidence of R.W.1. 3. On consideration of the issue as to rash and negligent driving the tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry and with respect to quantum and liability for compensation, the tribunal assessed the compensation based upon the earning capacity of the deceased by keeping in view his age at 55 years at the time of the accident. The tribunal applied multiplier 11 to the earnings of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. After applying multiplier 11 the tribunal proceeded to reduce the multiplier by four times on the ground that the deceased was aged 55 years and would have retired in next three years and consequently, the tribunal applied effective multiplier 7 to the monthly earnings and granted compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. 4. In this appeal, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company contended that the deceased was nearing retirement and hardly three years were left for his retirement and as such, the multiplier ought to have been reduced by at least 5 or 6 times and not only 4 times as followed by the tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the earning capacity, keeping in view the age of the deceased and his proximity, should have weighed with the tribunal and the assessed compensation is liable to be reduced. Learned counsel also seeks reduction in the rate of interest. 5. I am unable to appreciate the first contention inasmuch as the multiplier applied for the purpose of calculating the dependency takes into consideration all the variables relating to the earning capacity of the deceased. Even as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] the appropriate multiplier 11 is applicable for the age of 55 years. The tribunal below, therefore, has correctly applied multiplier 11 but, however, reduced the same by four times. I am finding it difficult to accept the said reduction from the appropriate multiplier but in the absence of any appeal by the claimants the award cannot be interfered with in favour of the claimants. However, as mentioned above, when the appropriate multiplier is applied by the tribunal below further reduction of the multiplier would not be justified merely because the claimant is deemed to retire in the next three years from the date of his death. 6. To the extent of the other contention of the learned counsel that the interest awarded by the tribunal at 7.5% is not in conformity with the prevailing rates of interest, it is true that all the recent judgments of the Supreme Court have consistently awarded interest at 6% and it would, therefore, be appropriate to modify the rate of interest to 6% per annum in the present case also. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent of substituting the rate of interest on the amount awarded by 6% instead of 7.5%. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 20, 2010 DSK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121