IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1097 & 1900 OF 2008 Between: The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sangareddy. …Appellant A n d Ratala Saji and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1097 & 1900 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals arise out of the common order dated 29.10.2007 in O.P.Nos.114 and O.P.No.127 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Medak, wherein a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was awarded to the parents of the deceased, who are claimants in O.P.No.127 of 2005 and compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded to the wife, who is the claimant in O.P.No.114 of 2005 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The main contention raised by the appellant/insurer is that the 4th respondent herein, who is the claimant in O.P.No.114 of 2005, was not the wife of the deceased and the Tribunal erred in passing an award in her favour. The 1st petitioner in O.P.No.127 of 2005, who is father of the deceased, admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased was married. When it was suggested to P.W.1 that the 4th respondent herein was the wife of the deceased, he stated that she left the deceased before his death. Though he denied the suggestion that the 4th respondent herein is his daughter-in-law, a perusal of the entire deposition of P.W.1 would go to show that the deceased married the 4th respondent herein and according to P.W.1, the 4th respondent herein left the deceased before his death. Further, Ex.A-6, the inquest report, would go to show that the deceased was married. 4. It is not disputed that the charge sheet filed against the driver also shows that the 4th respondent herein was the wife of the deceased and she was named as L.W.10. Thus, during the course of investigation of the criminal case also, it was found that the 4th respondent herein was the wife of the deceased. Further, she testified as R.W.1 that deceased was her husband. Though she was cross-examined by the parents of the deceased, no suggestion was put to her to the effect that she was not married to the deceased. Under those circumstances and in view of the evidence available on record showing that the deceased was the husband of the 4th respondent herein, the contention to the contra putforward by the insurance company, is untenable. 5. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailer by its driver, is not seriously challenged in this appeal. 6. Regarding the quantum of compensation also, the evidence on record also shows that the deceased was agricultural labour, aged 22 years, and the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.100/- per day on an average, which is considered to be just and reasonable. Deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken as Rs.2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal has arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- and by awarding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- and apportioned the same directing that the parents be entitled for Rs.2 lakhs and the wife Rs.2,25,000/-. However, the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of only 6% per annum, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], from the date of filing of the petition. Subject to the said modification regarding the rate of interest, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with the above modification regarding the rate of interest. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th October, 2011 Lrkm. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121