THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.634 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants are the parents and the third respondent is the wife of one Ramulu, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 23.01.2000 at about 6.45 PM, when he was doing labour work on the road at Lingareddygudem due to hit by a bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7918 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. They filed O.P.No.811 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge-Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- payable by respondent No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner of the said bus. The O.P. was dismissed against respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/-out of which, a sum of Rs.15,000/- each was awarded to the appellants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization since the third respondent has already received a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation on 14.06.2000 by way of settlement out of the Court. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be deprived of the compensation on account of private settlement made by the third respondent and that settlement is not binding on them as regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age and income of the deceased at the time of accident and it granted megre amount of compensation. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-APSRTC submitted that the Corporation has already paid a sum of Rs.60,000/-to the third respondent-wife on 14.06.2000 as per Ex.A4 and therefore, the said amount may be deducted from out of the compensation. 4. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship of the appellants and the third respondent with the deceased. It is also not in dispute as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is with regard to awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/-each to the appellants by the Tribunal. As per Ex.B4, the third respondent received a sum of Rs.60,000/-by virtue of the private settlement arrived on 14.06.21000 between herself and the second respondent-APSRTC. Since this is a case of death, the Tribunal has to assess the compensation by applying the suitable multiplier. Though the appellants stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month as a Labourer at the time of accident, this Court is of the view that his earnings can be taken at the rate of Rs.2,500/-per month as per the evidence of P.W.2- co-labourer and annually, it comes to 30,000/-. If 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.20,000/-. Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report shows that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘17’, thereby, the compensation towards loss of earnings comes to Rs.20,000X17=-3,40,000/-. Since the claim of the claimants is Rs.2,50,000/-, the compensation is restricted to that amount. As the third respondent-wife has already received a sum of Rs.60,000/-by way of private settlement, the same should be deducted from out of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, the total compensation is determined at Rs.1,90,000/- and the same is awarded to the appellants. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.02.2011 SJ [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121