HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1702 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive and exorbitant, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.844 of 2001 dated 19-08-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Kadapa, whereunder though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,54,000/-, as the claim of the claimants was only Rs.2,00,000/-, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 2. Appellant – insurance company is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are claimants and respondent No.3 is respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal: 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 25-06-2000 at about 8-15 PM, while the deceased K. Sivaiah and his mother, claimant No.1 herein, were going on foot near Railway Kodur Panchayat Office, on the left side of the road, lorry bearing No.TN20 – A – 2518, belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed without blowing horn, dashed against the deceased from behind killing him on the spot. According to the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing seasonal fruits business and also business in food grains. Hence, the claimants, who are mother and sister, respectively, of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner of the lorry and its insurer respectively, filed their counters separately denying the case of the claimants. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.TN20-A-251 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 4. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 5. Based on the evidence on record, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,54,000/-, awarded only Rs.2,00,000/- restricting the compensation to that extent with interest at 9% per annum, as the claim of the claimants was Rs.2,00,000/- only. Even questioning the same as excessive and exorbitant, Insurance Company filed this appeal. 6. Heard Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company, and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,100/- per month without any basis, as such, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is on higher side ? 9. There is no dispute that the deceased was aged around 16 years as on the date of his death. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was doing business of seasonal fruits and food grains, which, perhaps, cannot be accepted. 10. However, coming to the income of the deceased, when it is taken by the Tribunal as Rs.2,100/- per month, it comes to Rs.70/- a day. It can be accepted that the deceased was earning that much a day including the prospects of enhancement in his future earnings. Out of which, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to his family. Since the deceased died unmarried, his mother’s age has to be taken into consideration for choosing appropriate multiplier and as she was 40 years old at the time of death of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier for her age group is 15 and when the annual contribution of the deceased to his family is capitalized with multiplier 15, it comes to more than Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of dependency alone. In the circumstances, Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards total compensation restricting the compensation to that extent, as the claim of the claimants is only Rs.2,00,000/-, in my opinion, cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant in any manner. 11. Therefore, I see no merits in this appeal, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. However, as per the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, the rate of interest can be reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum and it is accordingly reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 28, 2010. PV