THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.1351 of 2007 and M.A.C.M.A.(SR) No.55700 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.927 of 2005. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 3, 2 and 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of late P.Satyanarayana. On 13.02.2005, Satyanarayana and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 23 U 2666, on Hyderabad to Jeedimetla road. A petroleum tanker, bearing No.AAK 3609, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, coming in the opposite direction is said to have dashed against the auto, resulting in death of Satyanarayana. Crime was registered by the police against the driver of the tanker. It was pleaded that Satyanarayana was doing watch repairing, sales and service business, and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. His age was said to be 35 years. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, and at any rate, the said driver did not hold valid licence. Other grounds were also urged. Through order dated 05.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,22,000/-, as compensation and apportioned the same among the claimants. While the claimants seek enhancement by filing appeal, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. Heard Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed. Copy of driving licence of PW.2 was filed as Ex.X.1. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is about the fixation of liability on the driver of the tanker. According to them, the accident occurred, on account of the negligence on the part of PW.1, the driver of the auto. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the driver of the tanker did not hold valid licence. The record discloses that the concerned police registered a case against the driver of the tanker and charge sheet was also filed. Irrespective of the result in the criminal case, the factum of his negligence becomes clear from the very registration of the crime. Had there been any negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, RW.2; FIR would have been registered against him. Further, in the same accident, two other persons died and the dependants of those two deceased filed O.P.Nos.924 and 928 of 2005 before the same Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed therein, the 2nd respondent filed C.M.A.No.2773 and 2776 of 2007. Those appeals were dismissed, upholding the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker. Hence, no different view can be taken. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-, per month, as against Rs.5,000/- pleaded by the claimants. His age was taken as 35 years. One-third thereof was deducted and multiplier ‘15’ was applied. The deceased had more than three dependants. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], deduction towards the expenditure for the deceased must be restricted to one-fourth wherever the number of dependants is four and more. Further, according to the said judgment, the multiplier for a person of 35 years is ‘16’. If those two parameters are applied, the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.3,60,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- deserves to be awarded towards ‘loss of consortium’ to the 1st respondent and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.2,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. The total compensation would be Rs.3,82,500/-. Hence, the C.M.A.No.1351 of 2007 is dismissed and C.M.A(sr) No.55700 of 2007 is allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,82,500/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum. The same apportionment ordered by the Tribunal would hold good for the enhanced amount also. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:08.12.2011 GJ [1] 2009 ACJ 1298