HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2532 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Adilabad, in O.P. No.685 of 1999 dated 13-02-2003, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: (a) The claimants are wife, children and parents respectively of the deceased. (b) The deceased Jeevan Reddy, an Agriculturist, died in the motor vehicle accident on 19-03-1999. He was travelling in a bus bearing No.AP-1-T-1042 at the outskirts of Toopran Village, Medak District, and on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the bus dashed a tree on the road side. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta, where he succumbed to the injuries on 24-03- 1999 while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.206 of 1999 was registered by the police, Punjagutta Police Station and the police, Toopran Police Station registered a case in Crime No.48 of 1999 and subsequently both the cases were clubbed together and investigated into. (c) The deceased was claimed to be an Adarsha Rytu (ideal farmer). He used to grow cotton and mirchi and earn Rs.1,00,00/- per annum. He was also working as a Muneem and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per annum. Hence, the claimants, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. (d) The appellant, insurance company, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants including the accident, age and income of the deceased. It also contended that the bus involved in the accident is not insured with it, as such, it is not liable for payment of compensation and that the claim is excessive. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased K. Jeevan Reddy died in the accident occurred on 20-03-1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No.AP.1.T.1042 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? If so to what amount and against whom ? 3. To what relief ? 4. To substantiate their case, claimants got examined the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,322/- to the claimants against all the respondents, who include the appellant, jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, appellant filed this revision. 6. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company, and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the material on record. 7. Now the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary. 8. The contention of the claimants is that the compensation awarded is, in fact, on lesser side. 9. In the circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate ? 10. Ex.A-5 pahanis show that the deceased had 6-50 cents of dry land in Pochera Village and 13-29 cents of dry land in Khodad village, totalling Acs.19-79 cents. The Tribunal has taken agricultural income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum, which cannot be said to be unreasonable as it works out to little more than Rs.3,000/- per month. A person having about 20 acres of agricultural land, perhaps, can be expected to earn that much from the above land. The learned trial Judge deducted 1/3rd out of Rs.40,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived to Rs.26,666/- per annum towards dependency. 11. Coming to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken his age as 33 years as per Ex.A-10 postmortem report. The record reveals the age of the wife of the deceased as 38 years, and his children’s ages as 21, 20 and 18 respectively. Hence, there is no possibility of the deceased being aged 32 years at the time of his death. He must have been around 45 years. For the age group of 40 to 45, the appropriate multiplier is 15. However, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 15 only though it took the age of the deceased as 32 years. 12. Coming to the loss of dependency, income of the deceased has to be calculated by taking into consideration the prospects of future earnings as well. But, in this case, no such thing is done. Even without doing so, when the annual income of the deceased, after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his personal income, is multiplied with the appropriate multiplier i.e. Rs.26,666/- x 15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,53,322/- and certain amount has to be added to this amount towards possibility of enhancement of future earnings. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs.4,53,322/- granted towards loss of dependency by the Tribunal cannot be said to he high. However, there is no dispute about the amounts of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium. Thus, in any manner, the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Thus, there are no grounds to reduce the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal. 13. However, the rate of interest granted at 9% per annum can be reduced to 7.5% as per the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is accordingly reduced. 14. With the above modification in rate of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 18, 2010. PV