THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2695 of 2003 Date: 30.09.2010 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. … Appellant and Ratna Shekaramma and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2695 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 25.3.2003, in O.P.No.778 of 1999, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the O.P. filed by the claimants awarding a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased- Ratna Chandrasekhara Reddy, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 21.3.1999, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, bearing registration No.AP 9Z 3830, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 3. This is a case of death in a road accident. The method and the manner in which the accident had occurred and also the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the Corporation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He contends that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier ‘16’, instead of applying the right multiplier ‘15’ as per the judgment rendered by the apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DTC[1]. He further contended that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is also on higher side. 5. Now, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 6. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of death. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family was assessed at Rs.4,356/- and the yearly contribution was assessed at Rs.52,272/-. There is no controversy on this aspect. After applying the multiplier ‘16’, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of earnings at Rs.8,36,352/-. 7. In this regard, it is to be seen that though the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contends that the multiplier ‘`15’ is to be applied as per the judgment rendered in SARLA VARMA’s case (supra), after calculating the deductions from the income of the deceased, the total amount of loss of earnings would come to almost the same amount. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the application of the multiplier ‘16’. 8. The other aspect is that a sum of Rs.30,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium as against the permissible amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce a sum of Rs.20,000/- from out of the amount of Rs.30,000/- granted towards loss of consortium. 9. That apart, the Tribunal had awarded interest on the amount of compensation at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In my considered view, the said rate of interest is slightly on higher side. Therefore, exercising the power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I deem it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) to Rs.8,30,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs thirty thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 30.09.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2695 of 2003 30.09.2010 (Msr) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121