HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :2873 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the order and decree dated 15.10.2001 made in O.P. No. 161 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanpalle. The appellants are the dependants of the deceased Reddy Sekhar Reddy. It is the case of the appellants that on 2.7.1997, at about 7.10 A.M., while the deceased was proceeding on T.V.S. 50 moped belonging to the third respondent to Nallacheruvupalle and when he reached near groundnut mill, a lorry bearing Registration No. AP 03 B 1289 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Madanpalle, where he was declared to be dead. The deceased was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident and was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing groundnut business. The appellants-claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed a counter affidavit stating that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It also disputed the age, earnings of the deceased and the dependency. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 03 V 1289 by its driver ? 2. Whether the deceased D.Reddysekhar Reddy died due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the first respondent ? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent? 4. Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners ? 5. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the eye witnesses to the incident as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs. A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the appellants-claimants. Though no oral evidence was let in on behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, however, Ex.B1,insurance policy was marked. The third respondent, owner of the T.V.S. moped was examined as R.W.1. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. While taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, by applying the multiplier of 16, it determined the loss of dependency at Rs.2,56,000/-. In addition to this, the appellants were also granted an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium; In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- as compensation together with interest at 12% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants contended that even though the appellants filed Exs. A5 to A7, to show that the deceased was doing groundnut business, the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal also did not apply proper multiplier while determining the compensation amount. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, supported the impugned Award of the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal while taking into account the age and earnings of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier ‘16’ and awarded the compensation and the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. She deposed in her evidence that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 2.7.1997 and he was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the incident. It is his evidence that on the date of the incident, while he was sitting in a tea stall near Sudarsan Trading Company at Burakaalakota, he found the deceased, who was coming from the Western side of the road was hit by the lorry and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, where he died. P.W.3, who is another eye witness to the said incident supported the version of P.W.2. The appellants also filed Exs. A1 to A4 to prove that the deceased died in the accident. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs. A1 to A4, held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent alone. In so far as income of the deceased is concerned, according to the appellants-claimants, the deceased was doing groundnut business and was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. Even though the appellants filed Exs.A6 to A8, which are the Certified copies of the Registration Certificate, Certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax and 10(1) Adangal, respectively, to prove the same, however, on a perusal of Ex.A6, which is the Registration Certificate, it is seen that the said Certificate contained an endorsement that the said Registration was cancelled. Therefore, there is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased was carrying on groundnut business, in the absence of which, the Tribunal rightly took the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month as income of the deceased. The same does not require any interference. In so far as assessment of loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal while holding that the deceased was more than 25 years old, had applied the multiplier of 16 and determined the compensation amount. As per the postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of incident. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to take the age of the deceased as 30 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the deceased would be 17 and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.2,72,000/- (Rs.16000 x 17). Since the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under that head. However, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium instead of Rs. 15,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. But, the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses need not be disturbed. In all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- instead of Rs. 2,73,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the d petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 20th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129