THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.820 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 6.6.2002, in O.P.No.4 of 2001, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Hindupur, Anantapur District (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,03,160/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of M.Thatappa, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 13.11.2000 at 2-00 p.m., while proceeding to Maddakavaripalli and reached Malasamudram cross road, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus, bearing registration No.TN 32Y 1999, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased M.Thatappa. 3. The appellants herein are the claimants, first respondent is the owner of the offending bus and the second respondent is its insurer, in the O.P., before the Tribunal. 4. This is a case of death. Wife, children and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The other particulars regarding the accident and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,160/- towards compensation. Hence the present appeal by the claimants. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 7. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was doing agriculture and groundnut business and getting a monthly income of about Rs.8,000/-. Of course, some bills were marked under Ex.A-7 showing the name of the deceased. But, nobody was examined in support those bills. Therefore, those bills were not taken into consideration. 8. Further, the evidence on behalf of the claimants shows that an extent of Acs.8.26 cents of land was purchased by the deceased and after his death, his wife was cultivating the same. The said lands are dry lands. However, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, who deposed that the said lands are dry lands and rain-fed and they can only raise groundnut if there are sufficient rains, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the multiplier applied was ‘7.60’ basing on BHAGAVANDAS case (1987 (2) ALT 137). It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that in a recent case in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1], the apex Court had applied a different criteria. 10. In this regard, it is to be noted that the accident took place in the year 2000 i.e., almost a decade before the judgment rendered by the apex Court. In other words, as on the date of deciding the matter, the Tribunal had to necessarily rely on the multiplier adopted in BHAGAVANDAS case only. Therefore, the application of the multiplier, as held in BHAGAVANDAS case, cannot be faulted, nor the new criteria that has been evolved by the apex Court in SARLA’s case (supra) can be made applicable to the present case. Application of such new criteria, in my considered view, would confer undue and fortuitous benefit on the claimants. Hence the contention of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. 11. Therefore, the Tribunal has applied the right multiplier basing on the law prevailing at the relevant point of time. I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 24.06.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.820 of 2003 24.06.2010 (Msr) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121