IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO. 3739 OF 2002 Between: Alwala Eshwaramma & Ors. … Appellants V/s. B. Satyanarayana & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri M. Madhava Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K.Ashok Rama Rao HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.NO. 3979 OF 2002. J U D G M E N T : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award and decree dated 12-7-2002 passed in OP.No. 584 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby an amount of Rs.1,47,400/- with interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants. That on 10-3-2000, the deceased was proceeding towards Khammam cross road at Kodad and when he reached near Siddaratha Hotel, a jeep bearing Regdn.No. AP13T-5152 came at high speed, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against him, as a result, he received crush injury on his head and died on the spot. The deceased was stated to be aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.3000/- per month by running a pan shop. The first petitioner is his wife, second and third petitioners are his children, whereas, petitioners 4 and 5 are his parents. The second respondent-Insurance company denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending jeep as well as the avocation and earnings of the deceased. Based on the petition averments and counter-affidavit, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) whether the deceased (Alwala Veeraiah) died in the motor vehicle accident, and if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep No.AP13T-5152 ? 2) whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid ? 3) To what relief ? The father of the deceased was examined as PW-1, while the eye-witness to the scene of occurrence was examined as PW-2 and Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the charge sheet, Ex.A3 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.A4 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report, Ex.A5 is the driving licence and Ex.A6 is the Insurance policy, which were marked on their behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-Insurance company. After taking into consideration the material on record, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending jeep. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by running a pan shop, his income was assessed at Rs.900/- per month and 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses, and thus, the annual loss of contribution to the family was assessed at Rs.7200/-. As per Ex.A3-postmortem examination report, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of his death in the accident, as such, the multiplier ‘17’ was pressed into service in arriving at total loss of dependency to the family at Rs.1,22,400/-. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards pecuniary damages and Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner wife towards loss of consortium. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,47,400/- was awarded in favour of the appellants making the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though it was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by running a pan shop and though PWs.1 and 2 who are the father of the deceased and the eye witnesss respectively, have reiterated the same in their evidence, the trial court erroneously fixed his monthly income at Rs.900/-. He also contends that the multiplier ‘18’ should have been applied and the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded more than Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, wife of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the appellants- claimants failed to produce any document before the Claims Tribunal showing that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by running panshop. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal fixed an amount of Rs.900/- as monthly earnings of the deceased and by following the procedure laid down under the Act, the Claims Tribunal has arrived at Rs.1,22,400/- towards loss of annual dependency to the family of the deceased by applying proper multiplier ‘17’ besides awarding Rs.15,000/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, wife of the deceased. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, no fault can be found with the Claims Tribunal in applying the multiplier ‘17’ as the same is stated to be proper multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND ORS. V/s. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR[1]. So far as the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal at 9% per annum is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is their appeal, therefore, the same is not liable to be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that it is liable to be reduced to 6% p.a. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing Rs.900/- as monthly earnings of the deceased, since the appellants-claimants did not file any documentary proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by running pan shop. The Claims Tribunal cannot be found fault with in applying multiplier ‘17’ as the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of his death in the alleged accident as per Ex.A2 postmortem examination report. The multiplier ‘17’ is the proper multiplier for a person of aged about 26 years as per the decision referred to supra-1. So far as interest part is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same is not liable to be reduced inasmuch as this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation amount. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 05/08/2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.NO. 3739 OF 2002 05-8-2010 I s L [1] ) (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES-121