IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1592 and 2029 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A. No.1592 of 2007: Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.3, United India Towers, Basheerbagh X roads, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND S.R. Chellarao and others .. Respondents M.A.C.M.A. No.2029 of 2007: Between: Smt. Dasari Pentamma and others .. Appellants AND S.R. Chella Rao and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the award in O.P. No.2480 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 27-02-2007. 2. D. Agaiah, aged about 47 years, working as Gang man in South Central railway, was earning a salary of Rs.6,200/- per month, on which his wife, son, daughter and mother were solely dependent. On 18-01-2004, when Agaiah was going on cycle, a gas tanker No.AP 10U 9083, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against him near Pagidipally railway station. Agaiah died due to injuries even while being shifted to the hospital. Bibinagar police registered crime No.6 of 2004 against the gas tanker driver and the wife, son, daughter and mother of Agaiah, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the gas tanker. 3. While the owner of the tanker remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and contended that the excessive compensation sought for cannot be granted due to violation of the terms and conditions of the contract by the owner who did not inform it about the accident. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 were marked by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the gas tanker. The Tribunal also found that the insurer did not produce any evidence to show any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.B.1 and therefore, assessed the compensation payable jointly and severally by the owner and insurer of the gas tanker with reference to the age of 48 years of the deceased as mentioned in the post-mortem report applying a multiplier of 13. The income of the deceased was taken only as the net salary of Rs.4,518/- and not the gross salary of Rs.6,160/- as shown by Ex.A.7 salary certificate and after deducting one-third out of the net salary towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the future loss of dependency was, thus, calculated at Rs.4,69,872/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and on the total compensation of Rs.4,79,372/-, the Tribunal granted costs and directed apportionment of the compensation between the claimants and also the manner of disbursement. 6. The insurer challenged the said award in M.A.C.M.A. No.1592 of 2007 contending that the Tribunal granted excessive compensation by applying multiplier 13 as against the multiplier 8 applicable as per Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif[1]. The insurer also contended that the 2nd claimant is a major son, not dependent on the deceased and hence, it desired the exorbitant compensation to be reduced. 7. The claimants challenged the award in M.A.C.M.A. No.2029 of 2007 contending that the entire compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed should have been granted with interest and the Tribunal should have accepted the salary certificate Ex.A.7, which should have been the basis for assessing the compensation. The Tribunal should have awarded loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium also at Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the claimants desired the balance of compensation claimed by them to be granted. 8. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned standing counsel for the insurer and Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants, while the owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court also. 9. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the gas tanker for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is not challenged by either party and the subsisting insurance for the vehicle by the time of the accident was proved by Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy itself, which also indicated the 1st respondent to the claim to be the owner and the 2nd respondent to the claim to be the insurer of the vehicle in question and the joint and several liability of both the respondents to the claim to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Agaiah is, therefore, not in question and it is only the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled that is the subject of adjudication in these appeals. 10. It is seen from the salary certificate Ex.A.7 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, East of the South Central Railway, Secunderabad that the deceased was working as Senior Gang man earning a monthly salary of Rs.6,162/- with deductions of Rs.1,644/-. Out of the deductions made, they were either savings or recovery of advances or payment of insurance premia. Except the deduction towards profession tax, none of these sums seem to be susceptible for being ignored in calculating the loss of dependence of the claimants and even assuming that the amount deducted towards profession tax has to be reduced from the gross salary, still the salary of the deceased by the time of the accident can safely be taken for purposes of computing the compensation at Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A.7, of course, does not disclose whether the deceased is a permanent employee or not to consider any addition to income for computing the compensation and in the absence of any evidence as to the future prospects in career which the deceased would have, the income he was earning at the time of the death alone formed the basis for calculation. 11. Though the insurer challenged the multiplier adopted with reference to the precedent then being followed, after the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the multiplier applicable for a person aged between 46 and 50 years is now settled at 13 and the Tribunal also adopted only the multiplier of 13 for the age of 48 years of the deceased as stated in his post-mortem certificate. The loss of dependency should, therefore, be calculated on the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- by applying the multiplier 13 and in deducting the amounts, which the deceased would have spent had he been alive towards his personal and living expenses, again Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra) laid down that if the dependents are between 4 and 6 in number, the deduction should be one-fourth. If so, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.4,500/- per month as loss of dependency and multiplied by the multiplier 13, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,02,000/- . As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra), the claimants would also be entitled to further Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium making a total of Rs.7,22,000/-. But the claim of the claimants either before the Tribunal or before this Court is only for a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The compensation, therefore, can be reasonably rounded off to Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal did not award any interest on the compensation awarded. But Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that when the claim for compensation is allowed under the Act, the Tribunal may direct, in addition to the compensation, simple interest from the date of making the claim at a reasonable rate. The statutory benefit to be denied to the claimants should be based on some valid reason and in the absence of any such reason, the claimants also will be entitled to a reasonable rate of interest on the compensation from the date of the petition. However, keeping in view the length of time from which the insurer has to pay such interest on the compensation, the same can be limited to 6 per cent per annum. 12. The objection of the insurer against grant of compensation to the major son of the deceased, who was claimed by the insurer to be not dependent on the deceased, is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence in this regard before the Tribunal and any such contingency also will not make any difference to the liability of the owner or the insurer when the assessment of the compensation can only be on the lines done above. 13. Therefore, the award has to be modified in favour of the claimants as indicated above. 14. Hence, the award in O.P. No.2480 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 27-02-2007 is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or payment and costs and the apportionment of the said compensation between the claimants shall be in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned by the impugned award. No further directions need be given about the disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. M.A.C.M.A. No.1592 of 2007 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. No.2029 of 2007 is allowed without costs accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-10-2011 Svv [1] 1987(2) ALT 137 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298