THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.3319 OF 2002 O R D E R: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.05.2002 in O.P.No.186 of 1994, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 5 herein was allowed-in-part, granting compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed claim application before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Kotamreddy Sreenivasulu Reddy, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 30.9.1993. The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the sons and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was an Engineering graduate and he was a partner of M/s Rajeswari Constructions at Nellore and was doing contract works individually also earning an annual income of Rs.60,000/-. On 30.9.1993, the deceased started from Tirupathi on Scooter bearing No.AP 26 7498 along with one Chintanaboina Chalamaiah as the pillion rider and when they reached the bye-pass road after passing Gudur, a Jeep bearing No.AP 16 E 9819, owned by the 6th respondent herein and insured with the appellant, dashed against the Scooter on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver Talari Peddaiah, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the deceased, to which he succumbed. A case in Crime No.126 of 1993 was registered in Gudur Police Station against the driver of the Jeep. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 33 years. He underwent treatment in Siddartha Nursing Home, Nellore. 4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation and interalia contending that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and his relatives managed to avoid post-mortem over the dead body for the said reason. 5. During enquiry, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 copy of the insurance policy was marked on behalf of the appellant/insurer. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were also marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/insurer. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amounts granted by the Tribunal under various sub-heads were highly excessive and grant of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium is itself indicative of the excessive indulgence shown by the Tribunal in awarding compensation liberally. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the other hand justified the award on the ground that notwithstanding the sub-heads under which the various amounts were awarded, the total amount granted in a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- is just and adequate compensation, having regard to the fact that the deceased was a young man, aged 33 years, and was an Engineering Graduate, doing contract works and earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver, is not seriously challenged. Even otherwise, Ex.A.5 Charge sheet shows that after due investigation, the police registered a case against the driver of the Jeep for the rash and negligent driving and Ex.A.6 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report is to the effect that the accident is not due to mechanical defect in the vehicle. 10. The main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is excessive as contended by the appellant and if so, to what amount the claimants are entitled? 11. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 33 years by the date of the accident and was an Engineering Graduate, having obtained degree in Civil Engineering from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University and initially worked as Site Engineer in S.U.W.Constructions in Madhya Pradesh and subsequently resigned the job and registered himself as Class III Contractor and he was a partner of M/s Rajeswari Constructions and earning annual income of Rs.60,000/- by doing the contract works and filed the income tax assessment orders Exs.A.11 and A.12 for the two years prior to the accident to show the income. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards special damages and Rs.3,28,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘17’ taking the income of the deceased at Rs.28,945/- as shown by the income tax returns for the assessment year 1992-93 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,28,049/-. The said amount is considered to be just and reasonable, having regard to the young age of the deceased and that he was an Engineering Graduate and doing contract works. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future profits and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses, instead of 1/3rd, the claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement. The amount of Rs.3,28,049/-, which was rounded off to Rs.3,35,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency does not, therefore, call for interference. Similarly, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards special damages, also does not call for any interference. 13. The only contentious fact that remains to be considered is the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards consortium. No doubt, the first claimant is a young woman and she lost her husband at a young age, but grant of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium cannot, by any standards, be considered reasonable. The Schedule II of the M.V.Act indicates that the loss of consortium can be awarded at Rs.5,000/-. The accident occurred on 30.9.1993 prior to coming into force of the amendment to the M.V.Act. Since the amendment came into force on 14.11.1994, the second schedule of the Act cannot strictly be made applicable to the present case. It is not disputed that conventional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium was being granted in respect of the cases arising prior to coming into force of the amended Act. By such awarding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the claimants are, therefore, entitled for the said amounts of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the first claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants 2 and 3, who are young children are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned award is modified to the extent stated above and awarding a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 16th November, 2008 PNV