HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No.4572 of 2008 and MACMA No.1279 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: MACMA (SR) No.54144 of 2008 is filed by the claimants whereas MACMA No.4572 of 2008 is filed by the Insurance Company against the same award dated 28.07.2008 passed in O.P.No.68 of 2007 by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Since both the appeals are directed against the same award passed in O.P.No.68 of 2007, facts as stated in MACMA (SR) No.54144 of 2008 are adverted to: The claimants filed the said O.P seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one G. Pochaiah in the motor accident that occurred on 20.09.2006 involving lorry bearing registration No.AP-13-T-924. 3. To prove the claim, the claimants examined wife of the deceased as PW.1 and two other witnesses and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. Ex.A-1 is the First Information Report copy, Ex.A- 2 is the Charge Sheet, Ex.A-3 is Panchanama, Ex.A-5 is Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the point of culpability in causing the accident held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry in question and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. There is no dispute as to the nature, date and place of the accident. The finding as regards the fault fixed on the part of the driver of the accident lorry in question in the light of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 warrants no interference. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence of PW.1 that as on date of the accident, the deceased was working as railway key man. As per Ex.A-7 – salary slip he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month and he was aged 50 years. It has also further come in the evidence of PW.1 that as on date of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and had he not died in the accident, he would have served another eight years in railway department. Hence, considering the future prospects though as per Ex.A-7 – salary slip he was drawing Rs.7,500/- per month on an overall income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,000/-. In the light of the decision of Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], annually income can be taken at Rs.96,000/- (8,000 x 12) out of which 1/3 is to be deducted towards his personal expenses of the deceased, and thus loss of dependency comes to Rs.64,000/- (96,000 – 32,000). Considering the age of the deceased at 50 years the relevant multiplier applicable is ‘13’ and if the same is applied, the total loss of dependency amount comes to Rs.8,32,000/-. Apart from this amount, the claimants are also entitled to a conventional sums of Rs.20,000/- under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of estate totalling to Rs.8,52,000/-. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:31.03.2011 KK/SP HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Common judgment in MACMA.No.4572 of 2008 and MACMA No.1279 of 2011 March 31, 2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129