THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.910 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.No.4704 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.1324 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum - VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 28.06.2007. The M.A.C.M.A.No.910 of 2008 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The M.A.C.M.A. No.4704 of 2008 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.4704 of 2008 have filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner and son of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 12.04.2006. According to the petitioners on 12.04.2006 at about 4.30 P.M. the deceased R.Jalender Reddy was going on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 29J 7598 from Nizamabad side towards Hyderabad slowly on the extreme left side of the national Highway No.7 road, at that time when he reached near the Timmapally Cross Roads, the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down from his motor cycle and died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Sales Executive in Woodland and drawing an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month towards salary. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has opposed the claim of the petitioners by filing counter contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place on 12.04.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.UP 78AN 8325 by its driver resulting in death of R.Jalender Reddy? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so to what quantum? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20 and Exs.X.1 to X.7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,80,700/- by taking into consideration of Ex.A.7, which shows that the deceased was earning Rs.7,600/- per month. The learned counsel for Insurance Company mainly contended that there is no proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.7,600/- per month and he was only a temporary employee and taking into consideration of Ex.A.7 is not correct. He further pleaded that as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” the multiplier 16 has to be applied as the deceased was aged about 33 years. He further pleaded that awarding of Rs.47,000/- towards pecuniary damages by the Tribunal is excessive as per the Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra). The learned counsel for claimants contended that the deceased is having 10 years experience and the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. He further pleaded that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. We have considered the judgment of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by both sides. As per Ex.A.7 pay slip, the deceased was getting Rs.7,600/- per month, which was supported by the evidence of Managing Partner of the firm. Even though there is some other material by way of Exs.A.19 and A.20 to show that the deceased was getting more income, but the same was not supported by any evidence. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased as Rs.7,600/- per month is correct and there is no need to interfere with the said finding. As per Ex.A.10 marks list of 10th class of the deceased and Ex.A.14 driving license, the deceased was aged about 33 years as on the date of his death. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the proper multiplier applicable for the said age group is ‘16’ and number of dependents are 4 in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per Ex.A.7 the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.7,600/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, which comes to (Rs.7,600 – Rs.1,900) Rs.5,700/-. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,700 X 12 X 16 = Rs.10,94,400/-. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium. In total, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards pecuniary damages but not for Rs.47,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for (Rs.10,94,400 + Rs.20,000) Rs.11,14,400/-. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation amount. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.910 of 2008 is partly allowed to the limited extent of reducing the interest to 6% P.A. from 9% P.A. on the compensation. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.4704 of 2008 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,14,400/- from Rs.10,80,700/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:28-10-2011 Ksp