HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N .RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No. 217 of 2005 DATED: 21.10.2010 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. … APPELLANT A N D 1. Raheemunnisa Begum 2. Azeezunnisa Begum 3. A. Shanker Goud . … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Common Order dated 14.08.2002 made in O.P.Nos. 593 and 944 of 1997 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, allowed both the petitions in part while awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P. No.593 of 1997 in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, making respondent Nos.1 and 2 liable to pay the same with interest @ 9% per annum jointly and severally. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in O.P. No. 593 of 1997. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 14.06.1997, the deceased – Md.Ibrahim, was going on his cycle from LIC cross-road, Yellammagutta towards Phylong Chowrastha, and at about 2.00 A.M., when he reached in front of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad, a lorry bearing No. AP25 T 4815 driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind the deceased and hit him, as a result, the deceased sustained multiple and crush injuries and died on the spot. Then, the petitioners filed O.P. No. 593 of 1997 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. To substantiate the claim of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on their behalf. Nobody was examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary, awarded the compensation in O.P. No.593 of 1997 as stated supra. Challenging the order passed in O.P. No. 593 of 1997, the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly salary of the deceased, who was admittedly working as RTC Driver, at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,700.60 as claimed by the claimants and applying the multiplier 15 instead of 10.45 and the Tribunal also erred in holding that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the Insurance Company, and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. Since none appeared for the respondents, the matter is disposed of on merits. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 – certified copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A2 – certified copy of charge sheet, would reveal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 25 T 4815 only. Further, even though the learned Standing Counsel contended that in spite of the fact that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.4,700.60 as per Ex.A6 – Salary Certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.6000/- p.m., it is to be noticed that the Tribunal, while determining the monthly salary of the deceased, took the future prospects of the deceased and also his contribution to his family into consideration and fixed his salary at Rs.6000/- p.m., and I do not see any reason contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the age of the deceased according to Ex.A5 – death certificate was 40 years, but the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 45 years. Even if the age of the deceased is taken as 40 years as per Ex.A5 – death certificate as contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the appropriate multiplier would be “16” as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the resultant compensation would be something more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, I have no hesitation in placing on record that the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation by considering the age factor of the deceased and appropriate multiplier. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be found fault with as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity, as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in any way. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 21st October, 2010 bcj