THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2976 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Battula Krishna Rao, husband of the 1st appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of appellants 4 and 5, was said to be doing agriculture and running a dairy farm. On 18.11.2001 at 3.15 p.m., he was proceeding on a motorcycle, bearing No.AP 9AC 1430, from Hyderabad to Pragnapur. An APSRTC bus, bearing No.AP 10 Z 7436, owned by the respondent, is said to have dashed against Krishna Rao, resulting in instantaneous death on the spot. Crime No.76 of 2001 was registered against the driver of the bus, under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. The appellants filed O.P.No.125 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming Rs.10 lakhs, as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- from different sources and that he was aged 39 years at the time of his death. The O.P. was opposed by the respondent by filing counter. It was stated that the deceased himself was liable for the accident and that his age was about 45 years. The particulars as to income furnished by the appellants were also disputed. Through order dated 03.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,68,000/-, with interest at 9%, per annum, and apportioned the same among the appellants. Not satisfied with that, they have filed this appeal. Heard Sri K.L.N.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. On behalf of the appellants, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were filed. No evidence whatever was adduced on behalf of the respondent. The fact that the accident occurred, on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus was proved beyond any pale of doubt through the oral evidence of an eye-witness - PW.2 and documentary evidence comprising of Exs.A.1 to A.5, the FIR, charge-sheet, inquest report, post-mortem report and MVI report. No appeal is preferred by the respondent challenging the said finding. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- from agriculture and dairy farm. The evidence in this regard comprised of depositions of PWs.3 and 5 and income certificate – Ex.A.6 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In matters of this nature, it is too difficult to expect any specific proof. Even assuming that the deceased was cultivating Acs.23.00 of land and also was maintaining buffalos, the income as a whole cannot be said to have been denied to the family. The land as well as buffalos were in tact and the loss is in terms of supervisory charges. The Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.5,000/- per month. This Court is of the view that the figure was correctly arrived at. The loss of dependency for the family would be Rs.60,000/- per year. Since there are more dependants than three, only one-fourth to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. Therefore, the loss to the family would be Rs.45,000/- per year. The age of the deceased though pleaded as 39 years, was found to be 45 years. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘10.45’ based upon the judgment of this Court in Bhagwandas Vs. Mohd. Arif[1]. Not only the Parliament appended Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, but also the Supreme Court reviewed the matter in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the multiplier that becomes relevant for a person of 45 years is “14”. On application of the said multiplier, the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,30,000/-. The Tribunal awarded certain amounts under different categories such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, mental agony, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Since it is a case of death, many such amounts are not permissible. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the compensation is enhanced to Rs.6,00,000/-, in all. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.6,00,000/- in all. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the enhanced amount also, but the said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. Though no appeal is preferred by the respondent, vis-à-vis the interest, in matters of this nature, the Supreme Court held that interest cannot be awarded more than 7%, per annum. Hence, the entire amount, which is awarded in the O.P., shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.12.2011 GJ [1] AIR 1988 AP 99