HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 2420 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 197 of 1998 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of one Palamakula Venkata Subbaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 27.8.1990 when the deceased traveling along with two bags of chillies in the lorry bearing RC No. TMI 8372 of the first respondent, and when the said lorry reached Chillakur village, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same, and due to which the lorry fell aside and the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. First respondent-Owner of the lorry bearing No. TMI 8372 remained ex parte and the second respondent-New India Assurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and Ex. B1 is the insurance policy showing that there is valid coverage of insurance as on the date of accident, covering the risk of the first respondent, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ASHA RANI AND OTHERS[1] even if the deceased is construed or treated to be the owner of the goods, the risk of such person would be covered by the policy, therefore, held that the owner alone is liable to pay compensation. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal in the absence of documentary evidence with regard to earnings, taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as per II Schedule of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and after deducing 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses assessed the contribution to the family at Rs. 10,000/- and applied the multiplier for the age of 55 as 4.27, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium totaling to Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Court below ought to have granted more compensation by applying the correct multiplier and the Tribunal ought to have granted 12% interest per annum. He further submits that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and it has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is quite correct and it needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record while the deceased was traveling along with two bags of chillies in the lorry bearing No. TMI 8372 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and PW-1 wife of the deceased stated that the deceased used to do chilly business and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2200/- is taken as monthly earnings of the deceased and after deducing 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1466/- per month (2200 x1/3=733-2200 =1466) and per annum it comes to Rs. 17,592/- (1466 x12=17,592/-). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2], the relevant multiplier is 11 if applied the amount comes to Rs. 1,93,512/- ( 17,592 x11). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate totaling to Rs. 2,03,512/-. 7. In NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYAL SINGH[3], the Apex Court also observed as under: “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’. Hence, claims Tribunal is appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,03,512/- under all heads, as stated above. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.2,03,512/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs. 30,000/-, the claimants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.11.2010 KA [1] 2002 (4) DECISIONS TODAY (SC) 71 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [3] 2003(1) ALD –1(SC)