THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.593 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the compensation awarded in O.P.No.373 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated 11.06.1997, whereunder a sum of Rs.4,63,052/- was awarded as compensation for the death of the deceased-Sk.Inayatullah in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.03.1994. The facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that on 25.03.19914, at about 11.30 pm near Hanuman temple, Saifabad, when the deceased was going on his scooter bearing No.AAK-1729 from Santoshnagar towards Chanchalguda to go to his house at Tarnaka, a lorry bearing No.AHK 6654 came from his behind in a high speed and dashed him, as a result he fell down and sustained multiple compound fractures and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, he died on 23.04.1994. Hence, the O.P. filed by claimants 1 to 3, who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased, respectively, and are dependents on the deceased, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident. To prove the case, on behalf of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W-1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-40 were marked. On behalf of the insurer, Ex.B-1-copy of the insurance policy was marked and none was examined. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Standing counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. P.W-1 is the wife of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the said accident. P.Ws.3 and 5 spoke about the occupation of the deceased. P.W-1-wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing journalism and was about to start a Magazine known as Education and Employment Digest. P.W-3 corroborated the evidence of P.W-1 in some aspects i.e., as regards the intention of the deceased to start a new magazine and his taking steps in that regard. Exs.A-29, 31 and 32 were filed which shows that the deceased was about to start a new magazine. Hence, keeping in view the job of the deceased and his future gainful prospect by starting a new Magazine on his own, the income of the deceased can safely be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month and if 1/3rd of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, which works out to Rs.36,000/- per annum and as the deceased was aged 36 years, by applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘16’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,76,000/- (i.e., 3,000 x 12 x 16). In addition to this amount, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on higher side and also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the same is reduced from 12% to 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the first appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, died during the pendency of this appeal and hence, the enhanced compensation may be ordered to be given to the son of the deceased, who is the second appellant herein. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,63,052/- to Rs.5,93,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,948/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. It is further directed that the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,948/- together with interest shall be given to the second appellant, who is the son of the deceased. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 23rd September 2010 dr [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121