THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 64 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, against the order and decree dated 19.02.2003 passed in O.P. No. 724 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein, for the death of one Maram Gattaiah in a motor accident occurred on 12.08.1999. Respondent No.1 is wife, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the children and respondent No. 5 is the father of the deceased. Respondent No.7 is the owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant is the insurance company and they resisted the claim of the claimants, by filing counters. The Tribunal, having framed the issues and having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, held that the accident, in which the deceased died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver, respondent No.6 herein, and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,91,680/- to the claimants, payable by the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, jointly and severally, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs and apportioned the compensation amount among the claimants as detailed in the order under appeal. The occurrence of accident and the manner in which the accident took place, the employment of the deceased, the salary which he was drawing at the time of his death, his contribution to the family, the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident, are not disputed by the counsel for the appellant. However, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 38 years, instead of 35 years, as mentioned in the claim petition, and if the age of the deceased is taken as 38 years, the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is ‘15’, and the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 35 years as mentioned in Ex.A3 post mortem report and applying the multiplier ‘16’. We are unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 35 years as mentioned in Ex.A3 post mortem report. Except contending that in the claim petition, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 38 years, no material whatsoever has been placed by the appellant to show that the age of the deceased as on the date of his death was 38 years. Since Ex.A3 post mortem report reflected the age of the deceased as 35 years as on the date of his death, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 35 years and arrived at just compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.7,91,680/- with interest as ordered in the order under appeal, and we see no grounds to interfere with the order under appeal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 3rd August 2011 IBL [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104