IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD (3rd) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No. 2471 of 2009 Between: New India Assurance Company Ltd., Mahabubnagar … Appellant And: K.Sharadamma & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2471 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.03.2008 in OP No.14 of 2007 on the file of the MACT cum District Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the claim application of the respondents 1 to 4 herein, filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for the death of the deceased K.Seshaiah Achary, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2006. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was returning on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 11 A 6373 from Kothakota to Wanaparthy, at about 9.30 p.m. when he reached Gumpugattu, a car bearing No.ATI 4000 came from Wanaparthy side at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died. The police registered a case in Cr.No.126 of 2006 against the driver of the car. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was aged 45 years and he was gold smith and was earning Rs.12000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. The 5th respondent owner of the vehicle and the appellant – insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.ATI 4000 by its driver. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred on 29.08.2006 and three months later, the car bearing No.ATI 4000 was surrendered before the police as crime vehicle and the same is falsely implicated for the purpose of claiming compensation. 6. It is to be noted that the complaint was given by the wife of the deceased and the same was registered as FIR Ex.A.1 and after due investigation, police filed charge sheet Ex.A.4. The vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who gave report Ex.A.5. The fact that the description of the vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR Ex.A.1 or in the Inquest Report Ex.A.2 does not lead to any inference that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. During the course of investigation into the complaint, the crime vehicle was identified and filed charge sheet against the driver of the said vehicle. The accident is said to have occurred during night time. Admittedly, the first claimant was not present at the time of the accident. She gave complaint on the next day. Thus there was no occasion for her to know the description of the vehicle, let alone registration number of the same. PWs.2 and 3 are said to have witnessed the accident. It is stated in the FIR that the vehicle fled away from the scene immediately after the accident. When that is so, having regard to the fact that the accident occurred during night time, the failure of PWs.2 and 3 to know the descriptive particulars of the vehicle is understandable. PWs.2 and 3 were not cross-examined regarding the said aspect. The plea of the appellant-insurer that the vehicle is falsely implicated for the purpose of claiming compensation remains unsubstantiated. No inference of any such implication can be drawn in view of the fact that there has been time lag of about three months between the registration of the FIR and tracing the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the appellant-insurer has not ordered any investigation nor got any investigation conducted to identify the crime vehicle involved. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver is not liable to be interfered with. 7. Regarding the quantum, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.3000/- per month. But, however applied multiplier 9.93 and arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,57,480/-. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no basis for taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased, who was aged 45 years is ‘14’ in view of the recent decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case ((2009)6 SCC 121] and that the Tribunal has taken a lesser multiplier only 9.93, it is considered that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. However, as per the above decision, the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition, instead of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Subject to the above modification in the rate of interest, which is now fixed at 6% per annum, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.08.2011 bss