IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2776 of 2005 Between: The United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant AND Gangapuri Ananthamma & 8 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2776 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.1359 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam, dated 01.07.2005. 2. Gangapuri Bhaskar Rao, aged 35 years, was getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month as a General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Limited, Manuguru. On 29.08.1999, near Ambedkar Centre on Paloncha to Kothagudem main road, tipper No.AP 20T 2759, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against Bhaskar Rao. He died on the spot and Paloncha Police registered Crime No.127 of 1999 against the tipper driver. The wife, four children and parents of Bhaskar Rao, solely dependent on him for livelihood, claimed a compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the tipper. 3. The driver and owner of the tipper remained ex parte, while the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and put them to strict proof of all their claims. The insurer also contended that there was no basis for the quantum of compensation claimed and the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The insurer also obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), from the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 and B-1 during the course of enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the oral evidence of the claimants corroborated by the contents of Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet to conclude that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal, acting on Ex.A-6- Pay Slip of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,100/- per month and deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased leaving a balance of Rs.5,400/-. Further reducing the amount of dependency of the claimants to Rs.4,500/-, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 36 years as shown in Ex.A-5-Post Mortem Report and applied a multiplier of 16. The loss of dependency, therefore, was quantified at Rs.8,64,000/- and the Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The claim, however, was limited to Rs.8,50,000/- as claimed and interest was awarded at 9% per annum. The Tribunal gave further directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 6. The insurer challenged the said award contending that the salary of the deceased was only Rs.7,981.69 Ps. and Rs.4,950/- after deductions. 1/3rd out of the same should have been deducted and a lower multiplier should have been adopted. The compensation was fixed against the settled principles and, hence, the insurer desired the award to be reversed. 7. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the claimants are heard, while the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. 8. The insurer did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent to the claim being the cause for the accident and the joint and several liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased. Even the driver and the owner of the vehicle also did not even appear before the Tribunal or this Court and, hence, it is only the quantum of just and adequate compensation that would be the subject of adjudication herein. 9. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant questioned the Tribunal relying on Ex.A-6-Pay Slip of January, 1999 of the deceased as against Ex.A-9-Salary Certificate issued by the employer of the deceased about the salary of August, 1999, the month of death of the deceased. The salary was calculated in Ex.A-9-Salary Certificate at Rs.213.58 Ps. per day for a period of 26 days and the salary at Rs.5,553.08 Ps. was not shown to be having any further deductions. Even if the said sum is to be taken into account and not the salary specified in Ex.A-6-Pay Slip, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased could have been only 1/5th in view of the dependents of the deceased being more than 6 in number in the light of the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[1]. If so, the loss of dependency per month would have been Rs.4,400/-, while the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.4,500/- per month. That apart, as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1), the dependents would have been entitled to Rs.20,000/- in total towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, while the Tribunal awarded only Rs.17,000/- together for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Even if the monthly dependency was calculated at Rs.4,400/- and the compensation was consequentially arrived at, the claimants would have been entitled to Rs.8,81,000/-, while their claim was only for Rs.8,50,000/- to which quantum, the award was restricted by the Tribunal. It should be remembered that the application of a multiplier or the deduction towards personal expenses are only in approximation and not in mathematical precision and it will be unjust and unreasonable to interfere with any marginal difference in calculation at this distance of time given the increasing inflation and decreasing value of the rupee over the years. As the provisions of the Act require liberal interpretation for the benefit of the victims and their dependents, any marginal difference needs to be ignored even if the claims of the insurer were to be accepted. 10. However, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum on the compensation and the interest awarded by superior Courts during the relevant period was varying between 6% to 9% generally and interest at 7.5% per annum was adopted in many cases. Given the length of time for which interest has to be paid by the insurer, which is also a custodian of public funds, the interest can be limited to 7.5% per annum. 11. In the result, the award, dated 01.07.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.1359 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam, is modified only to the extent of reducing the interest payable on the compensation to 7.5% per annum and otherwise confirming the award in all other respects. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered, accordingly, without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2776 of 2005 Date: 11th October, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298