HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.Nos.156 and 171 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.156 of 2004 is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited while C.M.A.No.171 of 2004 is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04-08-2003 made in O.P.No.1709 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 25-6-2001 Smt. M.Srinivasamma, who was working as Headmistress in the Government Primary School, Pochammagadda, was returning home after school duty and when she was crossing the road, the lorry bearing No.AP12-TY-4671 carrying a load of grass, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed her resulting in instantaneous death. Husband, daughter and sons of the deceased filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The owner filed counter contending that the lorry driver was not at fault and the deceased was crossing the road on the wrong side. The insurer filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and also contended that the lorry driver was not having a valid driving licence. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of claimants and the evidence of RW-1 and Ex.B-1 cc of insurance policy on behalf of respondents in OP, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, and awarded compensation of Rs.6,52,720/- with proportionate costs as against the owner and insurer of the lorry. Aggrieved thereby, the insurer preferred C.M.A.No.156 of 2004 while claimants preferred C.M.A.No.171 of 2004. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the deceased was crossing the national highway and as such, she is also partly responsible for the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier '11' as the deceased was aged 55 years 9 days by the date of accident and that the driving licence had expired and there was no renewal. He also contended that the age of the husband has to be taken for applying the multplier. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was working as Headmistress in a Government School and the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '11' for three years being the remaining service and multiplier '8' for half of the pension. He contended that the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier '11' to the income and calculated the compensation amount. 6. Having heard either counsel and upon perusing the record, it is seen that the deceased was crossing the road when the accident occurred. PW-2 is an eye-witness to the accident and he stated as to the manner of accident. Further, the evidence of PW-2 finds corroboration in Ex.A-2 charge sheet and Ex.A-4 that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of any dispute as to Exs.A-2 and A-4 coupled with the oral evidence of eye-witness PW-2, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. There are no compelling reasons to take a different view. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the claim petition was filed by the husband as well as unmarried daughter and sons of the deceased. The deceased was aged 55 years 9 days as on the date of the accident and the multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased is '9'. The contention that the age of the husband has to be taken into account for applying multiplier, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the deceased was working as Headmistress and died in an accident at the age of 55 years and further, in regard to the contention of contributory negligence, nobody was examined on behalf of the respondents in OP except stating that there is no valid driving licence and PW-2 is an eye-witness to the accident and he is an impartial and independent witness. Admittedly, the deceased was working as Headmistress in Government Primary School at the time of accident and Ex.A-6 salary certificate issued by PW-3 Headmaster working at the relevant time, shows that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.11,317/-. Having regard to the salary of the deceased, I am inclined to deduct 10% of the salary towards income- tax and other statutory deductions and the net monthly salary comes to Rs.10,185/- (10/100 x 11,317) and the annual net salary works out to Rs.1,22,220/- and since there are four claimants, I am inclined to deduct one-fourth of it towards personal living expenses and it comes to Rs.30,555/-, thus the net contribution towards family works out to Rs.91,665/-. Therefore, the loss of contribution to the family calculated on a multiplier '9' appropriate to the age of the deceased, works out to Rs.8,24,985/-. The claimants are husband and children of the deceased and as such, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,44,985/-. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal filed by claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,44,985/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand nine hundred eighty five only). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till payment. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-7-2010 bsc