HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 936 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 283 of 2004 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of one Vidithi Nagaraju in a motor accident that occurred on 15.4.2004 at about 10.15 PM when the deceased was riding bicycle on his left side of road and when reached in front of Himza Company in the limits of Sadasivpet, an Auto bearing No. AP 23/V-185 came in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed him and due to which, he fell down and sustained injures and died instantaneously. First respondent being driver-cum- owner of the auto remained ex parte and the second respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited filed its counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 23/V-185 belonging to the first respondent. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs A1 to A5 and Ex. B1, Policy copy, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-United India Insurance Company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in estimating the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and the court below ought to have found that the owner of the vehicle is only liable to pay the compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. AP 23/V-185 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. PW-2 is an eyewitness, who traveled in the auto stated that the auto came in a high speed in an opposite direction dashed against the deceased-cyclist in opposite direction. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who stated that her husband was aged about 28 years but in Exs A3 and A4 his age was mentioned as 32 years and he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. As there was no other document showing the income of the deceased, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/-. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 , 1/4th where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. In this particular case, the number of dependent family is 5, hence, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. If deducted the amount of contribution towards family comes to Rs. 22,500/- (Rs. 30,000 x ¼ = 7500-30,000=22,500). For the age of 32 years the relevant multiplier is 16 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR (supra-1) and if applied the correct multiplier the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- (22,500 x 16 = 3,60,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount of compensation awarded comes to Rs. 3,80,000/-. 6. As far as the liability of the compensation is concerned, in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KAMALA AND OTHERS[2] , it was observed that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 7. Following the above judgment, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part, exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company from paying the compensation and decreasing the compensation from Rs. 3,90,000/- to Rs. 3,80,000/-. However, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation and recover the same, from the owner of the Auto bearing No. AP-23/V-185. There shall be o order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 18.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] 2001 ACJ 843