THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.583 OF 2003 DT.2.12.2010 Between: Yamunabai and three others …………..Appellants Vs. Iqbal Kaur Khanuja and another …………….Respondents JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the impugned orders, dated 14.06.2001 passed in O.P.No.147 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Medak, at Sangareddy, whereby and where under the lower Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.92,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The deceased was an employee worked as a Labourer on the lorry of first respondent bearing registration No.MP 24 A 6575 to do the labour work of loading and unloading sand; that on 12.02.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., when the vehicle reached near Sultanpur, the driver thereof drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof, it dashed against a culvert wall and turned turtile and that the deceased sustained injuries and died. 3. The lower Tribunal after framing the relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accident lorry and as to the right of the petitioners to claim compensation and also the liability of the respondents, answered the issues in favour of the petitioners/claimants holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accident lorry driver and as the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company, the petitioners were held to be entitled to compensation and that the respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The lower Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900/- and fixed his contribution to his family at Rs.600/- per month and consequently fixed the loss of annual dependency at Rs.7,200/-. 4. It is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as labourer on the accident lorry. It is contended in this regard that the lower Tribunal committed an error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900/-; that the lower Tribunal by following second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which is also supported by judgments rendered by the Apex Court. It is also contended that though as per the post-mortem report, the deceased was aged about 40 years by the time of his death in the accident, the lower Tribunal fixed his age as more than 45 years and wrongly applied multiplier ‘10’. It is also contended that the lower Tribunal ought to have fixed proper multiplier ‘16’ as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a proper one for a person aged between 35 to 40 years. Therefore, it is contended that the same requires to be rectified, since the court is required to award just and reasonable compensation. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the second respondent Insurance Company submits that the appellants 1 and 2 are stated to be the wives of the deceased. Therefore, it is contended that both of them cannot be held to be legal heirs of the deceased and vis-a-vis their children i.e., appellants 3 and 4. The learned counsel also took exception for not marking the Insurance Policy. Having regard to the above facts, the learned counsel supported the order of the lower Tribunal in fixing the age of the deceased as more than 45 years, by adopting multiplier ‘10’. The learned counsel further contended that the interest awarded by the lower Tribunal at 9% is at higher side. 6. However, so far as non-marking of the Insurance Policy is concerned, though it finds place in the pleadings, no evidence is adduced by the second respondent Insurance Company before the lower Tribunal nor proved that the accident vehicle was not insured with it and no policy was issued to that effect. So far as the status of the appellants/claimants is concerned, they cannot be said to be not the legal heirs of the deceased. No material is brought on record to show that they were not the legal heirs of the deceased. The first and second appellants are stated to be the wives of the deceased. The later marriage of the deceased with one of them may be a void or voidable one, however, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act that the second wife is not a legal heir nor she is not entitled to claim any compensation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the lower Tribunal cannot be interfered with in that regard. Firstly, it is the appeal filed by the claimants and secondly, the Insurance Company failed to prefer any appeal. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that though the appellants-claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is no evidence on record to that effect. Therefore, the trial court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900/- and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses, his contribution was fixed at Rs.600/-per month and annually it comes to Rs.7,200/-. It is the contention of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. As per Ex.A.4-post mortem report, the age of the deceased was 40 years. In the circumstances, the trial court ought to have taken the age of the deceased at 40 years and proper multiplier for a person aged between 36 and 40 is ‘15’ as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Therefore, this court is of the view that the age of the deceased can be fixed at 40 years and the proper multiplier ‘15’ has to be applied for arriving just and reasonable compensation. 8. Thus the appellants-petitioners are entitled to Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of dependency (Rs.7,200 x15). In addition thereto, the appellants- claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium in view of the facts and circumstances. 9. In the result, the C.M.A. is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced amount of compensation is concerned. No order as to costs. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 2-12-.2010 Stp/Tjs [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121