THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.176 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellants herein filed O.P.No.4 of 1994 before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur claiming a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Pasalaiahgari Chennappa, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4. It was pleaded that Chennappa was working as a Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad Elementary School, Eguvapalli and that on 01.07.1993, he was proceeding to Anantapur with an intention to deliver rice and vegetables to his children, appellant Nos.2 to 4, who were studying at Anantapur and that when he was waiting at Toll Gate, Pamidi with the goods, a lorry bearing No.AAC 6566, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, came and took away the deceased and the goods. The vehicle is said to have met with an accident by dashing against another vehicle bearing No. AP 02 V 990, resulting in immediate death of Chennappa. They pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the Lorry bearing No. AAC 6566. The deceased was said to be aged 54 years and that he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,691/-. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by respondent No.2 alone by filing written statement. The general plea of denial of occurrence of accident and age and income of the deceased was raised. It was also pleaded that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a passenger and that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the appellants and apportioned the same through order, dated 23.05.1997. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation. Their principal contention is about the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Though respondent No.2 denied the occurrence of accident and the age and income of the deceased, the evidence on record established that the accident did occur and the deceased died. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 01.07.1993 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry AP02-V990 and dashed against lorry AAC 6566? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and a copy of the insurance policy was filed. Further, respondent No.2 did not file any appeal on the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the lorry. The salary certificate of the deceased was filed as Ex.A6. According to that, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.4,691/-. The Tribunal took into account the probable increment which the deceased would have earned and arrived at a conclusion that his average emoluments would be Rs.7,500/- by the time he retires. The fact that the deceased would have been entitled to receive the pension was also taken into account. All the same, the contribution to the family was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, after deducting one-third from the monthly salary of Rs.4,691/-. The annual contribution was taken at Rs.36,000/-. However, the multiplier ‘5’ was applied by treating the age of the deceased as 54 years on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Bhagawan Das Vs.Mohd.Arif[1]. The said multiplier was found to be not correct. The Parliament added II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act providing for multiplier of ‘11’ for the persons of age between 50 and 55. I n Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[2]’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that multiplier ‘11’ would be proper for persons of that age. If the annual dependency is multiplied by ‘11’, it would come to Rs.3,96,000/-. The claim itself was Rs.3,75,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/-. However, the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7%. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal would apply for the enhanced amount also. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.11.2011. kdl [1] 1987(2) ALT 137 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court cases 121