THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2948 of 2005 Oral Judgment: Questioning the award dated 07.06.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the claimants on account of the death of one Nanavath Narayana Naidu in a motor accident, the appellant- Insurance Company, filed the present C.M.A. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that there is no material whatsoever has been placed on record to show that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.5, which is insured with the appellant, has caused the accident in which the deceased died, and as such, the Tribunal committed a grave error in fixing liability on the appellant to pay compensation to the respondents-claimants. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in arriving the compensation payable to the respondents-claimants without applying the multiplier. He thus prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal needs interference by this Court in appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants supported the order under appeal. None appeared for respondent No.5-owner of the vehicle as also respondent Nos. 6 and 7-claimants. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4- claimants. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that as the vehicle belonging to respondent No.5, which is insured with the appellant and which is alleged to have caused the accident in which the deceased died, is not identified, the Tribunal could not have fixed the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the evidence let in by the claimants, particularly P.W.2, who is an eye- witness to the accident, would disclose that he has identified the vehicle belonging to respondent No.5, which is said to have caused the accident. This apart, in Exs. A4, namely certified copy of the charge-sheet, a mention is made about the crime vehicle number as AP-04-T-7086, which belongs to respondent No.5 and is insured with the appellant. Further, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, vide his judgment, in C.C. No. 213 of 2002, which is marked as Ex. A9, held that the vehicle of respondent No.5, which is insured with the appellant, has caused the accident by reason of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. Though the appellant contends that the judgment of criminal court passed in Ex. A9 is not binding on the civil court so as to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.5, which is insured with the appellant, so as to fix liability for payment of compensation, the fact remains, in the criminal case, the driver of the vehicle, belonging to respondent No.5, has himself admitted that he has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus it cannot be said that crime vehicle, belonging to respondent No.5, which is insured with the appellant, is not identified, and that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing liability on the appellant for payment of compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.5 which is insured with the appellant has caused the accident, in which the deceased died, and thereby fixing liability on the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants, need not be interfered with. There is no doubt that the Tribunal did not apply the multiplier while arriving at the compensation payable by the appellant to the respondents-claimants on account of the death of the deceased. However, we shall consider whether by non-application of the multiplier, the Tribunal committed an error in arriving the compensation payable by the appellant to the respondents-claimants at Rs.15,00,000/-. Admittedly, the deceased was working as Sub Inspector, and as evidence by Ex. A5-salary certificate, he was getting monthly salary of Rs.9,738/- without any deductions. However, an income of Rs.9,000/- can be taken, after statutory deductions. As per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], an addition of 30% should be made to the income, if the deceased was aged between 40 and 50 years, towards future prospects. Admittedly, at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 40 years, and as he was working as Sub Inspector, certainly he had a bright future, and as such, if 30% is added to Rs.9,000/-, the salary of the deceased, including towards future prospects, would be Rs. 11,700/-. The deceased, was having five dependants, namely, his wife, two children, mother and father. As per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma case, if the deceased has 4 to 6 dependants, then one-fourth of his income should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and as the deceased was having five dependants, if one-fourth is deducted from Rs.11,700/-, his contribution to the family, would be Rs. 8,775/-. The deceased, as noted above, was aged about 40 years at the time of accident, and the relevant multiplier applicable to a person aged 40 years, as per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma case, is 15. Thus, the loss of contribution by the deceased to his family would be (Rs.8,755/- x 12) Rs. 1,05,300/- and if the same is multiplied by the multiplicand 15, the loss on account of the death of the decease to his family, would come to Rs. 15,79,500/-, which is more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal, is less than the amount arrived at by us, which the respondents- claimants, are entitled to, as discussed and arrived at above, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.15,00,000/- by non- application of the multiplier, cannot be faulted. However, having regard to the prevailing interest rates, the interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed, with slight modification to the award with respect to payment of interest, which stands reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. No costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 28th February, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129