HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2363 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.472 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, questioning the compensation. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, the deceased R.Venkateshwar is said to be the husband of the petitioner and son of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and when he was standing near a Dhaba at Kandi village, the lorry bearing No.ADB-9729 came from Sadasivpet side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. The deceased was aged 28 years and he was an employee in M/s.M.R.F. Ltd., Sadasivpet and getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 are dependants on him. Hence, a claim was made for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the insurance company has filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by the deceased and also cause of death of the deceased. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,78,872/-. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 4. POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the salary of the deceased was not properly computed though the nature of the incident and cause of death of the deceased was not seriously disputed. According to Ex.B.1, the salary certificate, a sum of Rs.5,193/- was said to be drawn by the deceased after deductions. The evidence of PW.2 also shows the same and it also discloses that the deceased has got future promotional opportunities. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has taken the contribution as Rs.3,467/- and it cannot be said to be erroneous when it is supported by Ex.A.7 and the evidence of PW.2. With regard to multiplier applied by the lower Tribunal is concerned, evidently, the age of the deceased is ‘28’ years, the right multiplier is to be taken as ‘17’ since there are no children, who are the dependants on the deceased. But, there is no justification for enhancing multiplier to ‘18’. 5. Therefore, by applying the multiplier at ‘17’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,07,268/-. The lower Tribunal also has taken into consideration the loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. The total sum of Rs.30,000/-, which is also excessive in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A sum of Rs.20,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to is Rs.7,27,268/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further pleaded that the interest granted by the lower Tribunal at 9% is excessive. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the interest is granted at 7.5%. With the above modification, the award of the lower Tribunal is confirmed and accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:12.10.2011 INL