THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 878 of 2004 JUDGMENT: United Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP NO. 180 of 2003 dated 17.6.2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31.05.2001 while the deceased- P. Venkata Reddy was travelling in RTC bus bearing No. AP10Z 5609 from Kurnool to Koilkuntla and when the bus reached B. Thandrapadu Village at about 4.00 PM a lorry bearing No. AP 21U 8438 came in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the bus and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and later died in hospital on 5.6.2001. It is stated that the deceased was working as Teacher in M.P. Elementary School and was getting income of Rs. 12,877/- per month. The claimants accordingly laid a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- 3. The first respondent-owner of the lorry filed counter denying the averments in the petition and submitted that the driver of the RTC bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. The second respondent- United India Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that in order to get compensation, the negligence was thrown on the driver of the lorry and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus in causing the accident. The third respondent-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments in the petition and stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21u 8438 and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondents no oral or documentary evidence was adduced but on behalf of the 3rd respondent, driver of the accident bus was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred on 31.5.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21U 8438 belonging to first respondent or the driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5609 belonging to 3rd respondent- Corporation, in which the deceased Venkata Reddy was travelling? 2. whether he petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. to what relief? 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry, the respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer respectively of the lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In order to determine the loss of dependency, Exs A2 and A3 goes to show that the deceased was aged 58 years by the date of accident and the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs. A2 and A3 remained unchallenged about the age of the deceased, therefore, the age of the deceased was ascertained as 58 years by the date of his death and as per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appropriate multiplier for the age 58 is 8. As per the contents in Ex. A4, Salary certificate, the deceased was working as a Teacher in Mandal Parishad Elementary School in Amadala Vilalge of Koilkuntla Mandal and he was getting net salary of Rs. 12,797/- per month thus the annual income comes to Rs. 1,53,564/- (12,797 x 12) and after deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenditure income to be contributed comes to Rs.8,19,008/- (1,53,564x1/3x8). The Tribunal granted Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs. 8,54,008/- but the claimants restricted their claim only to Rs. 8,00,000/- the Tribunal held that they are only entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said compensation, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the multiplier applicable to the age of 58 years as per BHAGAWAN DAS VS. MOHD ARIF[1] is ‘0.97’ but the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 8. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- is just and proper? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry, the sixth respondent and the appellant herein, being owner and insurer respectively of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. It is also no doubt true that the deceased was working as Teacher in M.P. Elementary School and getting income of Rs. 12,877/- per month and the claimants produced salary certificate Ex. A4, issued by the Mandal Educational Oficer, Koilkuntla. As per evidence of PW-1, the age of the deceased was 58 years and documentary evidence Exs. A2 and A3 also goes to show that the deceased was aged 58 years by the date of accident and they are remained unchallenged about the age of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, taken the appropriate multiplier of ‘8’ for the age of 58 and computed the compensation. In SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTEHRS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR [2] the Supreme Court at paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 held as under: 19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163-A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) : 2005 AIR SCW 1801 2005 AIR SCW 2542 2006 AIR SCW 3613 1994 AIR SCW 1356 @page-SC3113 Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in II Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs. 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs. 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs. 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs. 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs. 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs. 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs. 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs. 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs. 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65 yrs. 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 yrs. 5 05 05 5 5 20. Tribunals/Courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163-A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 1994 AIR SCW 1356 2005 AIR SCW 1801 Question (iv) - Computation of compensation 22. In this case as noticed above the salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 4,004. By applying the principles enunciated by this Court to the evidence, the High Court concluded that the salary would have at least doubled (Rs. 8008/-) by the time of his retirement and consequently, determined the monthly income as an average of Rs. 4004/- and Rs. 8008/- that is Rs. 6006/- per month or Rs. 72,072/- per annum. We find that the said conclusion is @page-SC3114 in conformity with the legal principle that about 50% can be added to the actual salary, by taking note of future prospects”. 10. A plain reading of the above judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above, prepared by applying GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STTE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS[3], U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOK CHANDRA[4] AND NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD VS CHARLIE[5]. Therefore, on this multiplier aspect, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘8’ for the age of ‘58’. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. 11. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment is high and requested to reduce the same. 12. I see some force in his contention. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 KA [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [3] (1994) 2 SCC 176= 1993(4) SCALE 643 [4] (1996) 4 SCC 362= 1996(4) SCALE 522 [5] (2005) 10 scc 720 = 2005 (3) SCALE 541