HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL No.857 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive, the United India Insurance Company Limited filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in M.V.O.P. No.304 of 1998 dated 22-07-1999 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereunder claimants were granted the compensation of Rs.4,03,000/-, which was claimed by them. 2. Appellant, insurance company, is respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are claimants and respondent No.5, owner of the lorry, is respondent No.1 in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 26-05-1998 at about 5-00 AM, while the deceased, S. Bhaskara Naidu, was travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP16-T- 3989 of respondent No.1 along with a load of groundnut seeds to Hyderabad, near Peraiahgari Palle on Rajampeta – Kadapa route, due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, lorry fell in a pit on the left side of the road and on account of that deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.74 of 1998 was registered by the police of Sidhout Police Station for the offences under Sections 427, 338 and 304-A IPC and investigated into. The deceased was 35 years old as on the date of his death and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He was also acting as an agent of the lorry owner and used to travel along with the lorry for collecting freight. Hence, claimants, who are wife and children of the deceased, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,03,000/-. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – appellant, insurance company, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the deceased S. Bhaskara Naidu died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry AP16-T-3989 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,03,000/- with interest at 12% per annum against both the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, insurance company filed this appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants towards death of the deceased is appropriate ? 12. According to the claimants, deceased was working as agent under respondent No.1 and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was also getting Rs.3,000/- per month towards salary. 13. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month as against the claimants’ claim of Rs.15,000/-. Perhaps, there is no need of interfering with the findings of the Tribunal since after deducting 1/3rd of the amount out of the monthly income of the deceased (Rs.3,000/- x 1/3) towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to his family and capitalizing the same with multiplier 16, which is appropriate for the age group of the deceased, who was 35 years old as on the date of his death, Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 16) towards loss of dependency alone apart from the compensation under other counts. 14. In the circumstances, the total compensation of Rs.4,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants towards death of the deceased in the accident, cannot be said to be on higher side in any manner. Thus, I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. However, rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced and it is accordingly reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Except reducing the rate of interest, the remaining portion of the order of the Tribunal is confirmed in all respects. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 30, 2010. PV