THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1635 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the decree and order dated 08.12.2003 in O.P.No.820 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Second respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. A common award was passed by the Tribunal in this O.P. and O.P.No.764 of 2001. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: According to the petitioner, on 06.07.2001 while the deceased in this case was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.AP 7A/796 along with his mother, who is petitioner in other O.P.764 of 2001, when they were at ECIL cross roads, lorry bearing No.AP-16T-1517 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorbike from behind killing the deceased on the spot and causing injuries to his mother, petitioner in O.P.764 of 2001. Deceased was working as Cutter and Welder on monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-, which was contributing to the family. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The first respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether the accident took place on 06.07.2001 at 1.45 p.m. near ECIL cross roads only on account of the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry AP-16T- 1517 which dashed against the Hero Honda AP- 7A/796 of the deceased which resulted in the death of Mr.Anthony and any grievous injuries sustained to the petitioner in O.P.No.764 of 2001? 2. Whether the owner of the Hero Honda AP-7A/796 which was involved in the accident and its insurer are necessary parties to both the original petitions? 3. Whether the petitioner in O.P.No.764 of 2001 is entitled to compensation, and if so, for how much amount? 4. Whether the petitioners in O.P.No.820 of 2001 are entitled to compensation and if so for how much amount? 5. To what relief the petitioner in O.P.No.724 of 2001 is entitled? 6. To what relief the petitioners in O.P.No.820 of 2001 are entitled? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined for both the O.Ps. together and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 policy was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court below has granted higher compensation by erroneously taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, that the age of the mother was also taken wrongly for the purpose of applying appropriate multiplier. As such, the compensation granted is high. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Court below fixed it at Rs.4,000/-per month on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3, with whom the deceased was said to be working. Though much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of P.W.3, as the deceased was going on motorbike at the time of accident, which was owned by him, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, his income can be accepted to be around Rs.4,000/- per month and there is no need of reducing any amount from out of that. 7. Coming to the appropriate multiplier is concerned, the age of the mother of the deceased is taken as 32 years. When the deceased was aged 18 years, it is very difficult to believe that P.W.1 the mother of the deceased was 32 years even if the deceased was her first issue. As per the deposition of P.W.2, her age was recorded as 38 years on the deposition. Though it is not elicited from her evidence as to whether the deceased was her first issue, the cause title in the O.P. shows that the deceased was her first issue as there is only another petitioner by name Rabeka, sister of the deceased aged about 12 years. Thus, the age of the mother of the deceased can be taken as around 40 years. In such an event, appropriate multiplier is 12.79 and that the Court below though taken the age of the mother of the deceased as 32 years, applied multiplier 12.79. As such, the compensation awarded by the Court below at Rs.4,00,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side. However, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 8. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed in part with reduction of rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in all other respects. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 28th June 2010, Rns