THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2705 of 2003 Between: APSRTC rep.by its General Manager, Musheerabad ..... APPELLANT AND Mandala Lachaiah and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Krishna Reddy For Mr.P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs.Rajasree For Mr.S.Satyam Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award, dated 17.03.2003, in O.P.No.327 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The APSRTC (for short ‘the Corporation’) is the appellant. Respondent No.1, who is the father of the deceased, filed the above- mentioned O.P., claiming Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of his son. On finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant by respondent No.2, the Tribunal assessed the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in favour of respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment of quantum of compensation, the Corporation filed the present appeal. At the hearing, Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of ‘14’ instead of ‘15’, taking into consideration the age of respondent No.1 and that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Smt.Rajasree, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, sought to justify the award passed by the Tribunal. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% has to be deducted as personal and living expenses. Therefore, following this ratio, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation that 50% of the income of the deceased needs to be deducted. As regards the multiplier, in the same Judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is held that where the deceased or the parent, as the case may be, was between 41 to 45 years of age, ‘14’ is the suitable multiplier. There is no doubt about the fact that the age of respondent No.1 was 43 years and accordingly, the appropriate multiplier is ‘14’ and not ‘15’ as adopted by the Tribunal. Coming to the submission as to the rate of interest, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the Corporation failed to substantiate this contention with reference to any case law. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9%, which at the relevant time was taken as the reasonable rate of interest. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on this count. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by deducting personal expenses of the deceased at 50% instead of 1/3rd and substituting the multiplier of ‘14’ in the place of ‘15’. As a sequel to disposal of the main appeal, the interim order granted on 21.07.2003 in C.M.A.M.P.No.15525 of 2003, which was made absolute on 04.11.2004 in C.M.A.M.P.No.15329 of 2004, shall stand vacated, and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.15525 of 2003 and 15329 of 2004 are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 21.10.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121