IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1687 OF 1998 Between: The Oriental Insurane company Ltd., Nizamabad. ......petitioner AND 01. K.Gangadhar, Nizamabad District. 02. K.Narayana, Nizamabad District. 03. R.Naveen Goud, Nizamabad District. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V.Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in C.M.A.No.1687 of 1998. By the consent of both sides the cross objections are also heard along with the main appeal. 2. So far as the appeal in C.M.A.No.1687 of 1998 is concerned the Insurance Company has questioned the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, in O.P.No.739 of 1995, dated 30.06.1997. The said claim petition was moved by the claimants on account of death of their mother in the accident, which occurred on 13.06.1995. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was filed. The Tribunal framed an issue as to whether there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle and another issue with regard to the compensation to which the claimants are entitled. On the first issue, the tribunal found that there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and to the extent of the second issue the tribunal found that the deceased was aged 60 years, as is evident from the postmortem report as well as inquest report and that she was a house wife, the Tribunal proceeded to take into consideration only the lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. To the said amount, the tribunal added a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.1,000/- for transport charges to the hospital, extra nourishment and medical expenses of the deceased, another sum of Rs.1,000/- for taking the dead body from hospital to their house, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.200/- towards causing damage to the clothes. Thus, an aggregate amount of Rs.64,200/- was awarded. Questioning the same the insurance company has filed the present appeal. 3. During the hearing it was noticed that the Insurance company has not obtained any leave from the tribunal as envisaged under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and consequently it is not entitled to question the quantum. Even otherwise, on merits, it is evident that the deceased was a house wife, but her income was not determined notionally and lump sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded, which is not justified. Further a statutory minimum amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffered have not been awarded by the tribunal below. The award passed by the tribunal below, therefore, is substantially on the lower side. As such, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company questioning the grant of compensation is even otherwise not sustainable on merits. 4. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. To the extent of the cross objections filed by the claimants is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court in LATHA WADHWA v. STATE OF BIHAR[1] is squarely applicable. Paragraph 10 thereof concerns the issue relating to the deceased house wives, who are not earning any income and in such cases, the Supreme Court held that an income of Rs.3,000/- per month would be allowable for all housewives to the age group of 34 to 59, who are active in life. In the present case also the deceased while going towards the weekly bazaar met with the accident and as such, it can be presumed that she was active in life. Though as per the claimants’ the deceased was aged 50 years, the tribunal below has taken her age as 60 years based upon the postmortem report. Though the same is not disturbed for any other purpose, it can be presumed that the income of the deceased would be at the same rate of Rs.3,000/- per month equivalent to Rs.36,000/- per annum. While in Latha Wadhwa’s case (1 supra) a higher multiplier was applied for victims of such age group, we now have a decision of Supreme Court in SARALA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] wherein the multipliers awarded under various decisions of the Supreme Court and the one found in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been reconciled and an acceptable formula is derived. Adopting the same, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 56 to 60 years would be ‘8’ and as such, the compensation would work out to Rs.36,000/- X 8 = Rs.2,88,000/-. To the aforesaid amount, as the compensation towards pain and suffering deserves to be modified, an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted under that head. So far as the funeral expenses; transport charges to the hospital, extra nourishment and medical expenses of the deceased and transportation of the dead body to the house of the deceased is concerned, the tribunal has awarded an aggregate amount of Rs.4,000/- which deserves to be enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. In all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- in aggregate. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim till realization. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the cross objections are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 21st August, 2009 Ivd [1] (2001) 8 SCC 197 [2] 2009(1) DECISIONS TODAY (SC) 292