HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 156 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1265 of 2004 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of one Rambai in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4.12.2003 when the deceased was returning on foot to her house from a Tea stall, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5994 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her and due to which, she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5994 by its driver and fixed the liability on the respondent-Corporation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,73,500/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Court below failed to consider the income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants and it erred in taking the meager income on surmises and conjectures. He also submits that the court below ought to have awarded interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, but as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 4.12.2003 when the deceased was returning on foot to her house from a Tea stall, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5994 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her and due to which she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The Court below taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the deceased was working as Aya in Eminent School in Santoshnagar and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, her income was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the earnings of the deceased are taken at Rs. 2,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and out of that 1/3rd of the amount if deducted towards personal and living expenses, the amount comes to Rs. 16,000/- (24,000x 1/3 = 8,000 - 24,000 = 16,000) and the relevant multiplier for the age of 50 years is 13 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 2,08,000/- (16,000x13=2,08,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount of compensation granted comes to Rs. 2,28,000/- (2,08,000 + 10,000+10,000 = 2,28,000). 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,73,500/- to Rs. 2,28,000/- As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) scale 129