HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1713 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The claimants preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.181 of 2000 vide order dated 09-10-2002. 2. The facts in nutshell are that on 16-11-1999 at about 12 noon while Anthony Francis along with Anil Kumar was sitting on the culvert opposite to Sheri-e-Punjabi Dhaba, Kandalkoya village, Medchal mandal, Ambassador car bearing No.API-3025 driven in rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed him due to which he sustained fractures and other injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he died on the same day. Mother and Wife of the deceased filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the car involved in the accident. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 on behalf of the claimants and no evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents in OP, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, as against owner and insurer of the car. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimants and learned standing counsel for the respondent – insurance company and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and as such, the court below ought to have applied '18' multiplier and that the income taken for calculation is very low. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that in the absence of appeal by the insurer, the compensation granted by the court below is just and reasonable. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the record, it is noticed that the finding as to the rash and negligent driving of the car is not disputed. Coming to the compensation, it was claimed that the deceased was working as auto- driver earning Rs.2,500/- per month, but no evidence was produced to substantiate the same. Having regard to the date of the accident and other circumstances, I am inclined to take the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and annually, it works out to Rs.18,000/- out of which one-third has to be deducted towards personal living expenses. The deceased was aged 27 years by the date of his death, as per Ex.A-4 c.c. of post mortem certificate and in the absence of any dispute as to Ex.A-4, I am of the view that the age of the deceased has to be taken as 27 years and the multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased is '18' as laid down in SARLA VARMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN [1] case. Thus, the total loss of dependency calculated on multiplier 18 when applied to the net annual income of Rs.12,000/- comes to Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs,12,000/- x 18). The claimants are mother and wife and they would lose the help and company of the deceased throughout their life and as such, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.2,36,000/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,40,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousand only). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till payment. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 15-7-2010 bsc [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121