IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1480 of 1998 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 521 of 1989 dated 27/03/1993 on the file of the court of the ) Between: 1 P. Akshyam W/o. Late P. Swamy, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 2 Bharathi D/o. Late P. Swamy, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 3 P. Rajeshwar Rao S/o. Late P. Swamy, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 4 P. Surya Prakash S/o. Late P. Swamy, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 5 P. Rajamani W/o. Late P. Narsaiah, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 6 P. Narasaiah S/o. Late P. Veeraiah, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. 7 P. Raghu Ram S/o. Late P. Swamy, R/o. P.No. 52, Saraswathy Nagar Colony, Lothukunta Secunderabad. .... APPELLANTS AND 1 Zakira Begum ( minor ) rep. by guardian Dawood Ali KHan R/o. D.No. 10-4-771/332 M.G. Nagar, Masab Tank Hyderabad 2 K. Prabhu s/o. Mallappa, R/o. C/o. Dawood Aali Khan D.No. 10-4-771/332, M.G. Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bashirbagh, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.B.V.R.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: . The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1480 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The deceased, who is the husband of first appellant and the father of the appellant Nos.2 to 4 and 7 and the son of appellants 5 and 6, was working as Assistant Collector, Central Excise, at Hyderabad. He was aged 57 years at the time of accident, which occurred on 26.03.1989. The accident occurred while the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No. ABL 6286 when a lorry bearing No.AHT 6449 dashed against him, as a result of which, he died instantaneously. The appellants filed claim petition being OP.No.521 of 1989 claiming that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,305/- at the time of his death. While the first and second respondent i.e., owner of the offending vehicle and its driver remained ex-parte, the third respondent, Insurance Company, alone is the defendant in the claim petition. The tribunal below framed issues with regard to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and also on the quantum of compensation. The claimant produced PW.1, who is a third petitioner herein, and marked Exs.A1 to A7. While Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. in Cr.No.35 of 1989, Exs.A2 & A3 are death certificate and post-mortem certificate respectively. Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of the driving licence of the deceased. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.211 of 1989 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, relating to the aforesaid Cr.No.35 of 1989. Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of the Insurance Certificate and Ex.A7 is the salary certificate of the deceased. The respondent/Insurance Company examined its Branch Manager and marked Insurance Policy-Ex.B1 relating to the offending lorry. 3. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal below found that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. While considering issue No.3, with regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below has come to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards loss of expectation of life and another Rs.12,500/- towards pain and suffering. To the extent of dependency, for the purpose of calculating dependency, of the deceased the Tribunal below has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.5,305/- and after deducting the personal expenses, loss of dependency was quantified at Rs.4,000/- per month and arrived at Rs.48,000/- for 12 months. Thus the total compensation granted was Rs.48,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, aggregating to Rs.73,000/-. 4. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the multiplier method is not at all being applied by the tribunal below. Further, the salary of the deceased at the time of death alone is taken into consideration rather than the normal escalation eligible there on. He also submits that the loss of consortium and pain and suffering as well as funeral expenses ought to have been granted at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Insurance Company, has fairly submitted that to the extent of loss of consortium and pain and suffering the quantification of Rs.15,000/- each would be justified as against Rs.12,500/- granted by the Tribunal below under each of those issues. So far as the funeral expenses are concerned an amount of Rs.10,000/- would be normally granted to the extent of the said claim of the appellants. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal below warrants enhancement of Rs.2,500/- each for loss of consortium and pain and suffering and funeral expenses also deserve to be granted at the rate of Rs.10,000/-. 6. To the extent of the assessment of dependency, it is true that the Tribunal below has taken the salary of the deceased at the time of accident namely at Rs.5,305/-. In normal course following the decision of the Supreme court in Genral Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas[1], the escalation in the monthly salary could have been considered. But in the present case the deceased was aged 57 years and would have retired after attaining the age of 58 years. The enhancement of his salary, therefore, could not make such great difference, however, marginal enhancement thereof is permissible. It can, therefore, be safely taken that, had he lived up to the age of his retirement, he would have earned the salary of at least Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses his net contribution would have been Rs.4,000/- per month and yearly comes to Rs.48,000/-. As per the latest judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2] the quantification of multiplier under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is set out in paragraph 19 of the Judgment. The said decision takes into consideration various other judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and the comparative chart regarding multiplier is mentioned in the said paragraph. In a case arising under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the multiplier as adopted in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra[3] is mentioned as ‘8’ for age group of 57 to 60 years. The said multiplier, therefore, can be applied to the facts of the present case where upon the total compensation would work out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The compensation of only Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below, therefore, deserves appropriate enhancement. 7. Accordingly, the appeal, therefore, stands allowed in part by enhancing the compensation towards loss of consortium by further sum of Rs.2,500/- as well as towards pain and suffering also by another sum of Rs.2,500/-. The expenditure towards funeral is granted at Rs.10,000/- and the compensation against pecuniary damages stands enhanced to Rs.3,84,000/- as against Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. 8. The Tribunal below had awarded the compensation in favour of claimants 1 & 7. The claimants 2 to 6 were held not entitled to the compensation, as they were major daughters and sons of the deceased and were already employed and earning on their own and not dependant on the deceased. The mother of the deceased was then shown as 86 years old and in the cause title in the present appeal her age is shown as 90 years. Learned counsel for the appellants is not able to state the present status. Therefore, liberty is granted to the appellants to move the Tribunal below for appropriate directions regarding withdrawal of the amount. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.08.2009 MD [1] 1994 2 SCC 176 [2] 2009 1 DECISIONS TODAY 292 [3] (1996) 4 SCC 362