HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1534 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in M.V.O.P. No.428 of 1993 dated 24-06-1998 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, whereunder the learned Chairman though came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,27,616/-, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- restricting the compensation to that extent as the claim of the claimants was Rs.2,00,000/- only. 2. Appellant is respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are claimants, respondent No.4 is respondent No.1 (driver of the lorry) and respondent No.5 is respondent No.2 (owner of the lorry) in the MVOP before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the MVOP before the Tribunal. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: (a) On 14-02-1992, while the deceased Maddala Rajarao, Head Constable, was going on in the Police Escort Jeep No.ATU – 5251 by driving the same, on Government duty, along with other escort party, at about 9-00 AM, at Ibrahimpatnam, near Kongala Mallayya Gattu, near Chillakallu Village, lorry bearing No.AHJ 4597, which was coming in the opposite direction being driven by its driver, respondent No.1, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the police escort jeep causing fatal injuries to the deceased and on account of the same he died. A case in Crime No.15 of 1992 was registered against the driver of the lorry, respondent No.1, and investigated in to by the police of Chillakallu Police Station. The deceased was 43 years old and he was drawing a salary of Rs.2,199/- per month at the time of accident. He was left with 8 more years of service. Hence, claimants claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads. (b) Owner of the lorry, respondent No.2, remained ex parte. (c) Respondent No.3, insurance company, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants and the same was adopted by respondent No.1, driver of the lorry. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “ 1. Whether the deceased Maddala Rajarao, died in a motor vehicle accident on 14-2-1992 due to the rash and negligent of the driver/ R-1 ? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident ? 3. To what amount the petitioners are entitled towards compensation and from whom ? 4. To what relief ?” 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, photostat copy of the rough sketch of scene of offence. 7. Based on the evidence on record, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,27,616/- for the death of the deceased, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- restricting the compensation to that extent as the claim of the claimants was Rs.2,00,000/- only. Aggrieved of the same, questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive, this appeal is filed. 8. Now the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is excessive ? 9. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and there is also no serious dispute about the age and income of the deceased as he was a Government Servant. The Tribunal, by taking an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards contribution of the deceased to his family, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum, and applying multiplier 8.234, which is appropriate for the age group of the deceased, worked out the compensation at Rs.1,97,616/- towards loss of dependency alone. Apart from this, claimants are entitled to compensation under the other heads also. In view of the same, absolutely there is no irregularity or illegality in arriving at such conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Further, in view of the fact that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation than they claimed and awarded, there is no need of reducing the rate of interest. For all these reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 2, 2010. PV