THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No.729 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 12.09.2007 passed in O.P.No. 1135 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Session Judge- cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The said O.P was filed by the claimants/appellants herein seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one P. Rajinikanth in the motor accident that occurred on 11.12.2004 involving tractor and trailor bearing registration No. AP 24 F 425 and 426. The claimants/appellants herein are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. As against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.94,750/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The facts stated are:- P. Rajinikanth (deceased) was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 25 D 3940 on the left side of the road from Bhongir to his village Bijjilapuram and when he reached near Verravell village, the tractor and trailor in question, at that time, came in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed, from opposite side and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to the impact of which, he fell down and sustained head injury and he was shifted to NIIMS hospital, Hyderabad for treatment, but he succumbed to injuries two days later. It is stated that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 26 years and was an RMP doctor by profession and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. On the question of culpability in causing the accident, the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W-2 who claimed to be an eye witness to the accident, fixed the negligence equally on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailor in question and also on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal came to such conclusion and fixed liability at 50% in causing the accident on the deceased for the reason that he was driving the vehicle with a pillion rider and also four years baby on the motorcycle, due to which he must have lost concentration to drive the motorcycle at the material time of accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the deceased was an RMP doctor, at the relevant time, he went to a village to attend to a patient and while returning on his motorcycle along with P.W-2 and his daughter aged 4 years on the motor cycle, which is a normal course of practice in villages and also even in cities and it cannot be termed as triple riding. Learned counsel further stated that in addition to pillion rider, taking four year old daughter on his motorcycle would not in any way cripple the view of the driver of the motorcycle and it is not a case of triple riding to cause inconvenience to the rider of the motorcycle to drive freely and conveniently. I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The accident occurred around 6.30 P.M on the fateful day and according to P.W.2, who is an eyewitness, stated that the tractor and trailor in question was driven in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed, by its driver and caused accident. except the fact that in addition to the pillion rider, the deceased was taking his daughter aged four years on his motorcycle there is no other negligence attributed to the driver of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased. In those circumstances, fixing the culpability at 50% on the part of the driver of the motorcycle is unsustainable. In the circumstances, the liability in causing the accident is fixed on the driver of the tractor and trailor in question in toto. 6. Coming to the question of awarding just compensation, as above noted, the deceased was an RMP doctor by profession and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but as there is no evidence to that effect, his income can be safely fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.36,000/- (3,000 x 12) out of which 1/3rd amount (36,000 x 1/3=12,000) is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- (36,000 – 12,000). Considering the age of the deceased at 26 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘17’ and when the same is applied, the amount comes to Rs. 4,08,000/- (24,000 x 17). In addition to this, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and another Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate total to Rs.4,28,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. 7. In the result, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J April 7, 2011 SP /NRG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 729 of 2008 April 7, 2011 SP/NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129