IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2189 of 2008 Date:14.07.2011 Between: National Insurance Co., Limited, Somajiguda. .....Petitioner AND Mohd. Raziya Begum and 4 others. ....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2189 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.06.2007 passed in O.P.No.103 of 2005 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet, the present CMA is filed. 2. The learned counsel appeared for the appellant mainly contended that as per the impugned order, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A read with Section 140 of A.P. M.V.Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) but whereas as per the decree, it is noted that the claim was made under Section 166 of the Act and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1889 and there are conflictions and therefore, the observations of the Tribunal below are self contradictory. It is also further urged that the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is excessive. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal below has rightly awarded the compensation and hence there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal below. 4. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable? 5. As per the impugned order in O.P.No.103 of 2005, it is noted that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A read with Section 140 of the Act. A perusal of the decree, it is clear that the claim was made under Section 166 of the Act and Rule-455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989. The claimants filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of late Fakeer Ahmed the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 to 5. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The Tribunal while assessing the evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.7,59,500/- against the claim of Rs.10.00 lakhs. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this court to the claim petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal. As seen from the said petition, the claim was made under Section 166 of the Act. In normal course, the decree will be prepared basing on the findings of the court. The decree is the basis for realization of the orders thereunder. Hence, the decree clearly reads that the claim was made under Section 166 of the Act. The endorsement made in the order that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A read with Section 143 of the Act is only a clerical mistake and it cannot be taken into consideration to give any adverse finding against the decree. Therefore, in view of the recitals in the claim petition made by the petitioners/claimants, I am of the view that there is no necessity to make any observations about the filing of the petition under Section 166-A in the decree. Hence, I see no grounds to defer with the findings of the Tribunal below while awarding compensation. 7. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal below applied multiplier 13 as per second schedule of the Act. Admittedly, the deceased is aged between 48 to 49 years. As per the principles laid down in Sarala Verma and others and Delhi Transport Corporation and others[1] as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the multiplier-13 to be applied for the age group between 45 to 50 years. Though the Tribunal below applied multiplier 13, as per the second schedule of the Act, the same multiplier will also be applicable to the present case on hand even as per the guidelines laid down in Sarala Verma Case. Therefore, I see no grounds to modify the multiplier. The Tribunal below, while taking into consideration, the salary certificates of the deceased under Ex.A.11 and A.12, adopted the net salary of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and odd and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,40,000/-. In my view, the same is just and reasonable in the said circumstances of the case on hand. 8. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal below awarded the amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarala Verma case, the finding of the Tribunal below on that score do not call for any interference. 9. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest granted @ 7.5% p.a by the Tribunal below is reduced to 6% p.a. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Date: 14th July, 2011. Gk/Kvr [1]( 2009) 6 SCC 121