THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A NO. 851 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against award dated 25-01-2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2877 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII AMSJ, Hyderabad, following the death of one T. Rajender (herein after referred as ‘Deceased’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. On 24-07-2002 at about 6.30 A.M, when the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-36-5793 from Ramapuram to Hanmakonda, a lorry bearing No.AP-9u-1875 driven by the driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle from behind and as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. Kazipet police have registered crime No.126 of 2002. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the said O.P seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- lakhs with interest and costs. 4. The respondents, in their written statements, denied the alleged rash and negligent driving by the van driver and the other allegations of the petitioners and also stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The insurer stated that the deceased drove his motorcycle which was loaded with milk cans in rash and negligent manner and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The petitioners examined PWs. 1 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. None was examined on behalf of the respondents except Ex.B-1. 6. The Tribunal considering the evidence of eye-witness PW.2, and in the absence of any rebutted evidence by worth inspiring the confidence of the Court, rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. According to PW.1, the wife of the deceased, the deceased was aged about 32 years and the Tribunal quantified his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the evidence that the deceased used to sell milk, an amount of Rs.3,500/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased and annually comes to Rs.42,000/- and after deducting 1/5th from such assessed income (42,000x1/5=8,400), the annual loss of the dependency can be calculated at Rs.33,600/- (Rs.42,000 – Rs.8,400). As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], applying the multiplier of 16 to the age of 32, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,37,600/- (Rs.33,600 x 16). Added to that, Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of Consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of Estate. Thus the claimants are eligible to a total compensation of Rs.5,57,600/-. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part granting Rs.5,57,600/- with interest at 7% per annum on the enhanced amount. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 03-03-2011 KK/SP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO. 851 OF 2006 Date : 03-03-2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129