HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4795 OF 2004 DATED: 09.04.2010 BETWEEN: K.Mallikarjuna @ Mallikarjuna Rao .. Appellant And Smt R.Narayanamma and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4795 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant/injured against the order dated 07.09.2004 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Ananthapur in O.P.No.47 of 2001. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 3. Challenge by the appellant to the award is against the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent-insurance company from the liability to pay compensation and also as to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate and deserves to be enhanced. 4. The accident occurred at 3.00 PM on 11.10.1999 and it was established before the Tribunal that the appellant was traveling on the lorry bearing No.AP02 T 7254 belonging to the first respondent which was insured with the second respondent as the owner of the goods. It was averred and proved by the appellant by adducing cogent evidence before the Tribunal that he was proceeding in a lorry by carrying 105 onion bags belonging to him and the Tribunal recorded a positive finding that the appellant was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. The said finding is based on evidence and it became final as there was no challenge to the said finding. 5. However, the learned Tribunal held that under Ex.B.1-policy there is no premium paid to cover the risk of the owner of the goods and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and the first respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation. The accident occurred after the amended Motor Vehicles Act of 1994, which came into force w.e.f 14.11.1994. As per Section 147 of the Act, after amendment, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carrying goods. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the said provision and erroneously held that the second respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The said finding is therefore, set aside in this appeal and it is held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 6. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that with the 55% disability incurred by the appellant and he is unable to look after the cultivation of the lands and thus, arrived at loss of earnings at Rs.77,400/- being the supervisory loss. However, the learned Tribunal went wrong in considering the multiplier at 12.79. As per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the appropriate multiplier is 15 as the appellant was aged 40 years at relevant point of time. The loss of earnings of the petitioner therefore, is Rs.11,000/- x 15 x 55/100 = Rs.90,750/-. The other sums awarded by the learned Tribunal need no interference in this appeal. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.Rs.90,750/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.36,600/- = Rs.1,57,350/-. 7. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified holding that the second respondent-insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appellant and enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,34,600/- to Rs.1,57,350/-. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.22,750/- which carry the interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 09.04.2010 Note: issue copy in one week B/o kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4795 OF 2004 DATED: 09.04.2010 [1] 2009(2) L.S. 29 (S.C.)