THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1609 OF 2003 B. Lingamani and others V M/s. Liquors India Limited and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1609 OF 2003 Oral Judgment : 1) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2) The facts in brief are that on 15-7-1998 at about 11.45 p.m. P. Anjaiah who is the husband of the 1st appellant, and father of other claimants 2 to 5 while coming in the lorry tanker bearing No.AET 8586 with a bag of rice having paid a sum of Rs.100/- to the driver from Uppal to Raghavapur and that the said lorry tanker, belonging to the 1st respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the lorry bearing No.ADF 7929 belonging to the 3rd respondent, which was insured with the 4th respondent, and that P. Anjaiah died on the spot after receipt of serious injuries. 3) The deceased was working as a conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by drawing a salary of Rs.5,500/, and that due to sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their love and affection towards the deceased, also the source of income. Therefore, they filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 4) Respondents 1 and 3 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition. The 4th respondent has also filed written statement denying the material averments in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : 1) Whether the accident in question took place on 15-7-1998 at about 11.45 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the lorries bearing Nos.AET 8586 and ADF.7929 by their drivers ? 2) whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation for the death of B. Anjaiah in the said accident as his legal heirs ? If so, to what amount ? 3) To what relief ? 5) During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioners got their petition amended claiming the compensation against the respondents 3 and 4 also. The 4th respondent filed its additional written statement mainly contending that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker bearing NO.AET 8586 belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent that the respondents 1 and 2 are only liable to pay the compensation and that the police personnel also have registered a crime relating to the accident against the driver of the above vehicle only and that it is not liable to pay any compensation. Considering the above circumstances, the Tribunal did not inclined to frame any additional issue as the additional pleadings did not warrant to frame any additional issue. The claimants examined P.W.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and A.5 to A.7 in support of the case. The 2nd respondent examined its Senior Assistant as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to substantiate its case before the Court. The 4th respondent also examined its Senior Assistant and marked Ex.B.2 in support of its case. 6) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker bearing No.8586 and granted compensation of Rs.3,23,912/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal by the claimants. 7) During the course of the proceedings, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 1st appellant died and that the appellants 2 to 5 are her legal heirs, who are already on record. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants 2 to 5 that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier and that even though the claimants produced the salary certificate of the deceased, who is working in the APSRTC, the Tribunal has wrongly taken the contribution of the deceased on lower side, and therefore sought for enhancement by appropriate multiplier. 8) heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 9) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4, and admission of R.W.1 in his cross examination to the effect that the driver of respondent no.1 surrendered before the criminal court and that he was punished by the criminal court, that as per the panchanama the driver of the tanker hit the back tyres of the 3rd respondent’s vehicle, came to the conclusion that the driver of the oil tanker drove it in rash and negligent manner, causing death of the deceased. The respondent no.1 has not chosen to examine the driver of the oil tanker No.AET 8586 to rebute the same. Considering the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 10) With regard to quantum of compensation, it is in the evidence that the appellant-claimant was working as a conductor in the APSRTC, however, the Tribunal took Rs.2,778/- per month as salary of the deceased as on the date of accident as per Ex.A.6. It is borne out from the record that the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 49 years. As per the pay slip relating to the deceased for the month of September, 1996 the gross amount of salary of the deceased was Rs.4,938-10 ps as per Ex.A.7. It is noteworthy that Ex.A.7 is the pay slip showing the gross emoluments pertaining to the month of September 1996, whereas the accident in question occurred in the year 1998. It is also noteworthy that the deceased at the time of accident was working as a Conductor having put considerable years of service in the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and thus would be drawing the considerable amount more than what was taken into consideration by the Tribunal while quantifying the loss of dependency. In the circumstances by taking into account Ex.A.7, the loss of income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, as the deceased was having four dependent children and also wife at the time of accident, and thus having big family, and if 1/4th of the amount is deducted, Rs.3,300 can be taken as loss of dependency per month, and by applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,14,800/- ( i.e. Rs.3300 x 12 x 13 = 5,14,000), added to that another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- loss of consortium, and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses is granted. 11) Subject to above enhancement in compensation, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization on the enhanced amount only. No costs. GM, J Kk/1-7-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1609 OF 2003 1-7-2010