HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3173 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge at Nalgonda (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 141 of 2001 filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of one Immadi Prabhakar aged about 26 years in a motor accident that occurred on 24.10.2000 when the deceased and others were going in a car bearing No. AP-12-4480 from Nakrekal to Suryapet and when it reached Ramachandranagar on National High Way No. 9, a lorry bearing No. AP-16U 9421 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver, dashed the car and as a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries and he was succumbed to the injuries and others received multiple injuries. First respondent –owner of the lorry and the second respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited field counter denying the allegations made in the petition 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16U 9421 and taking into consideration the evidence of PW 1, mother of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed. The Court below wrongly taken the age of the deceased on higher side and wrongly granted less compensation and it also wrongly taken the multiplier on lower side. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 16U 9421 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the deceased received grievous injuries and he was succumbed to injuries. PW-1, is the mother of the deceased, who stated that her son was aged 26 years and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- as an agent in Sahara India but she has not produced any document to prove the same. As the labourer is earning Rs. 100/- per day, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 that her son was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, if Rs. 3,000/- per moth is taken as earnings of the deceased ends of justice would be met. Per annum the amount comes to Rs. 36,000/- (3,000x12=36,000) and as the deceased is unmarried half of the amount should be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[1], and if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 18,000/-. As the age of the mother is 55 years, for the age up to 55 years, the relevant multiplier is 11 and if applied, the amount comes to Rs. 1,98,000/- (18,000x11=1,98,000) and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate totaling to Rs. 2,08,000/-. As the claim of the claimant is only Rs. 2,00,000/-, the amount of compensation now granted is restricted to the claim of the claimant at Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part restricting the compensation claimed at Rs. 2,00,000/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129