THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.749 of 2003 JUDGMENT: R.Naga Subba Reddy, husband of the 1st respondent, son of the 2nd respondent and father of the 3rd respondent, was an agriculturist by profession. On 13.09.2001, he was proceeding as a pillion rider along with one Mr.Khader Basha from Dumpalagattu to Kadapa at about 11.30 a.m. When they reached near Amar Hospital, Kadapa, a lorry, bearing No.AP 21 T 9171, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant, dashed against the pillion rider on a scooter, resulting in serious injuries to Subba Reddy. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa and there he died within hours, while undergoing treatment. Respondents 1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P.No.1126 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, claiming a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum, from cultivation and that the family is left without any breadwinner. The 4th respondent remained ex parte. The appellant alone contested the O.P. He denied the allegations that the accident occurred, on account of the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was alleged that the scooter was being driven by a person without valid licence. The age and income of the deceased were also disputed. Through its order, dated 19.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,000/-, as compensation, with interest at 9%, per annum, and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3. This appeal is filed against the said order. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. None appears for the 4th respondent. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were filed. No documentary or oral evidence was adduced by the appellant. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the death of the deceased occurred, on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Though an effort is made before this Court to challenge the said finding, the record namely, Exs.A.1 to A.4, FIR, Post-Mortem Certificate, Inquest Report and Charge Sheet, proves his involvement. Coming to the quantum of compensation, respondents 1 and 2 pleaded that the deceased was an agriculturist and owned land and to that effect they filed Ex.A.5, Photostat copy of pattadar pass book. By its very nature, the income of the agriculturist is difficult to prove. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. One-third of it was deducted and the annual contribution to the family was taken at Rs.24,000/-. That is reasonable by any standard. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent towards ‘loss of consortium’, which cannot be said to be excessive. Award of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ of the deceased is totally impermissible. It is only that when the claimant is an injured that compensation can be awarded for ‘pain and suffering’. Further sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and out of it, Rs.10,000/- was awarded to the 3rd respondent, the son, and Rs.5,000/- to the mother. It is only part of it, namely Rs.5,000/- that can be sustained under that head and Rs.10,000/- is excessive. The result would be that the amount of Rs.25,000/- is excess. However, this stands balanced, in case the correct multiplier is applied. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 28 years. The multiplier applicable for a person of that age is ‘18’ under schedule-II and ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘16’. The multiplier ‘17’ can be applied, and in such an event, the compensation would virtually remain the same. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9%. This Court is of the view that the interest was excessive and 7.5% is reasonable. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5%, per annum, and upholding the order under appeal in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:16.11.2011 GJ