IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.941 of 2001 Date:30.12.2009 Between:- Duggu Kanka Laxmi and others ..Appellants/Petitioners And Kalali Chandan Goud and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claimants are the widow, the children and the aged parents of the deceased, who was working as a Salesman. While he was working as such and traveling in a matador van bearing No.A.I.M-4892 during the course of employment, the said vehicle met with an accident, on account of collision with an R.T.C.Bus bearing No.AEZ-205 driven by respondent No.1 and belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thereby, he received serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Sircilla where he succumbed to the injuries. The present case was filed by the claimants only in so far as the R.T.C. bus is concerned. The driver, owner and insurer of the van, in which the deceased was traveling were not impleaded in the claim petition. 2. The Tribunal below, on consideration of evidence, found rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the drivers of van as well as the R.T.C. bus, and consequently, held Issue No.1 that the accident occurred on account of composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and apportioned the negligence to the R.T.C. bus and the van in the proportion of 60% and 40% respectively. As mentioned above, since the driver, owner and the insurer of the van were not impleaded in the claim petition, the relief, which the claimants can seek, is only confined to 60% of the liability of the respondents herein, conserving the R.T.C. bus. 3. On the question of compensation under Issue No.2, the Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month which was established by evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A-3-salary certificate, and based on the same, after deducting 1/3rd thereof for personal expenses, the dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per year. The Tribunal, then applied the multiplier based upon age of the deceased as shown in Ex.A-2- inquest report i.e., 32 years and by applying the multiplier ‘15’, awarded the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.9,000/- for loss of expectation of life and thereby, awarded aggregate compensation of Rs.1,98,000/-. The liability of the respondents is to the extent of 60%. The same worked out to Rs.1,18,800/- which was allowed with interest at 12% per annum. As the claimants were seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in the said claim petition and the said extent is disallowed, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. 5. So far as the composite negligence and the liability of A.P.S.R.T.C. to the extent of 60% is concerned, there is hardly any controversy. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased, but committed an error in applying the multiplier. The learned counsel also submitted that the amount awarded under pain and suffering and loss of consortium ought to be atleast at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal below. Further, the funeral expenses awarded is Rs.2,000/-, which also requires appropriate enhancement. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Tribunal has correctly assessed dependency and applied the multiplier on the basis of the legal position then existing and as such, the Award has not warranted any interference. 7. The assessment of monthly income of the deceased, as is evident from the Award of the Tribunal below is clearly supported by Ex.A-3 read with evidence of P.W.3. However, while applying the multiplier, a marginal modification may be warranted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. In the said decision in Para No.21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has standardized the multiplier after survey of large number of decisions and the Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the said decision, the multiplier for the age group of 31 to 35 is 16. If we apply the said multiplier to the dependency of Rs.12,000/- per year, the total amount would work out to Rs.1,92,000/-. As per Second Schedule, further amount of Rs.15,000/- is required to be added towards loss of consortium, as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. Further, towards pain and suffering inclusive of medical expenses incurred in the hospital, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be added as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. An additional amount of Rs.10,000/- deserves to be added towards the transportation and funeral expenses, as against Rs.2,000/- allowed by the Tribunal below. Thus, the Award deserves to be modified and 60% of the amount as now modified would work out to Rs.1,39,200/- as against Rs.1,18,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The said enhanced amount shall also carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim till realization. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 30th December, 2009 AMD [1] 2009 ACJ 1298