IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.444 of 2007 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND D. Srinivas & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.444 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award, dated 26.09.2006, in O.P.No.1109 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Chamala Srinivas, aged 36 years, was MRP Assistant Teacher earning Rs.6,000/- per month, spent entirely for his wife, two minor daughters and aged parents. On 04.09.2003, he was going on his motor cycle No.AP-24-B-8172 when near Manjeera Wines in the outskirts of Venkatadripalem Village, auto No.AP-24-U-3940 dashed against him. The auto was driven rashly and negligently and Srinivas, severely injured in the accident, was shifted to Government Hospital, Miryalaguda and on the way to Hyderabad, he died. The owner and the insurer of the auto were requested by the claimants to be made liable to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. While the owner of the auto remained ex parte, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and contended that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties to the claim and the auto driver had no valid driving licence. Hence, the insurer denied the liability to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9, B-1 and B-2 during the course of enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the driver of the auto was rash and negligent in causing the accident for which purpose, it accepted the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-2-Inquest Report and Ex.A-6-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal, in assessing the compensation, took the age of the deceased as 39 years and applied a multiplier of 16 to assess the loss of dependency. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.5,256/- being the net salary and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. The annual loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.42,048/- and the total loss of dependency was considered to be Rs.6,72,768/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation of Rs.6,89,768/- was directed to carry interest at 7 ½% per annum and the Tribunal directed apportionment and disbursement of the compensation as per the award. 6. The insurer challenged the award in this appeal contending that excessive compensation was granted by applying a multiplier of 16 instead of 12.79 and the Tribunal must have noted that the deceased was not shown to be having any driving licence and it was his negligence that caused the accident. The appellant also questioned the grant of interest at 7 ½% per annum. 7. Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants are heard. 8. The insurer or the owner of the auto did not challenge the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the auto driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving or the joint and several liability of the owner and the insurer to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of Srinivas, who died due to the accident. The age of the deceased was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the service register, which cannot be doubted and the income of the deceased was assessed on the basis of a salary certificate issued by the employer which also cannot be doubted. Only the net salary was taken into account in assessing the loss of dependency and 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[1], the said deduction could have been only 1/4th as the dependents of Srinivas are five in number. No addition was made for future prospects in career. It is true that the multiplier adopted for a person of the age of 39 years at 16 is not in tune with SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) according to which it has to be 15, but any difference by addition of loss of dependency for one more year would have been much less than what the claimants have lost due to deduction of 1/3rd, but not 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased from the assessed income of the deceased. The amounts granted towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium were in tune with SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) and in fact, were less by Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the compensation or the interest at 7.5% per annum, which is not shown to be more than the then prevailing market rate of interest, at this distance of time and, hence, the award has to be confirmed. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.444 of 2007 Date: 27th September, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298