HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2422 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioners- appellants against the order and decree dated 12.02.2003 in O.P.No. 204 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Gajula Rajamallaiah. On 07.01.2001, when the deceased along with one G.Nagabushanam was proceeding on a motor cycle to their relatives house, when they reached near Peddapalli a tipper bearing No.AP-28-U-2851 driven by 1st respondent negligently came in wrong side and dashed the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased received injuries and died on 23.01.2001 after shifting to the hospital. He took treatment in the hospital as inpatient for a period of sixteen days. Hence, the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and second and third respondents filed counters denying the petition allegations. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-U-2851 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondents, no oral evidence was adduced however Ex.B.1 was marked. 7. It is a case of death. The Court below accepting the age of the deceased as 60 years, granted compensation of Rs.71,000/- taking the income of the deceased at Rs.800/- per month. PW.1 stated that his father was doing cloth business by the date of accident and was earning Rs.4500/- to Rs.5000/- p.m. but there is no evidence to show that the deceased was earning so much. The Court below deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and applied multiplier ‘8’. But however, as per the latest legal position, when the dependants are more than four, 1/4th has to be deducted instead of 1/3rd and the appropriate multiplier is ‘9’. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusing the impugned judgment and also considering the age of the deceased, I am inclined to grant another amount of Rs.29,000/- to the petitioners towards additional compensation. Accordingly the compensation is enhanced from Rs.71,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.71,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th November 2010, PNV