THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2266 of 2007 and 2166 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise from one and the same order passed in O.P.No.2214 of 2004, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant-United India Insurance Company and the appellants-claimants filed MACMA Nos.2266 of 2007 and 2166 of 2009 respectively, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 03.07.2007, passed in O.P.No.2214 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 27.02.2004, while Smt B. Uma and other passengers were proceeding in a jeep bearing No.AP 15 15T 478 from Siddipet to Shanigaram, and when it reached near Ramunipatla village, its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a lorry bearing No.MH 31 AP 6873, due to which, all the inmates of the jeep sustained injuries and Smt B. Uma succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being husband and children of the deceased Uma filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The insurance company filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation payable by the appellant-insurance company and respondent No.4-owner in MACMA No.2266 of 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Court below had applied wrong multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘18’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and awarded less compensation, whereas the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company contended that the compensation awarded by the Court below is highly excessive. 5. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W1-husband stated in his evidence that the deceased Uma was aged 22 years and earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month as a Beedi worker at the time of accident. Even, as per Ex.A4-post mortem examination report, the age of the deceased Uma was shown as 22 years. The Court below assessed her monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and the same is just and reasonable. If 1/3rd from it should be deducted towards her personal expenses, it comes to Rs.2,000/-per month and Rs.24,000/-per annum. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of ‘22’ years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA’s case (1 supra) is ‘18’. Thereby, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000X18=4,32,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate is awarded to the claimants. In total, a sum of Rs.4,52,000/- is awarded to the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs.4,52,000/-. The award of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 6. With the above modification, MACMA No.2166 of 2009 is allowed in part and MACMA No.2266 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:28.10.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121