HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3181 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.7.2005 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 687 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of one Nagamani in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.4.2003 at about 8.00 P.M when the deceased and others were coming in the jeep bearing No. AP 03/V-5058 and when they reached near Gajulapelluru Village, the driver of the tractor bearing No. T.N.22/Z-4077 came in opposite direction and both the drivers of the above vehicles drove the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and collided each other and due to which, the deceased Nagamani received injuries and he succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. First appellant is the first wife of Nagamani and the third appellant is the second wife of Nagamani. Respondents 1 and 4 remained ex parte and the second respondent filed a common counter denying the denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and fixed the contributory or composite negligence between both the drivers of the vehicles and since the jeep has turtle, the negligence of the driver of the jeep was fixed at 70% whereas the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor is fixed at 30%. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,63,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,63,000/- as against Rs. 4,00,000/-claimed by the claimants. He also submits that the Tribunal also erred in distributing the responsibility at 70% on respondents 1 and 2 and 30% on respondents 3 and 4 and it ought to have fixed the total responsibility on respondents 1 and 2, as the driver of the Jeep bearing No. AP 03-V-5058 is solely responsible for the accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- as labourer. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred when the deceased and others were coming in the jeep bearing No. AP 03/V-5058 and when they reached near Gajulapelluru Village, the driver of the tractor bearing No. T.N.22/Z-4077 came in opposite direction and both the drivers of the above vehicles drove the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and collided each other and due to which, the deceased Nagamani received injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. PW-1 claimed that her husband was aged 21 years and earning Rs. 150/- per day as ice candy seller. But the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as 1,000/- per month and calculated the compensation. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- is taken as the salary of the deceased and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses if deducted, the amount comes to Rs. 20,000/- (30,000x 1/3 = 10,000 - 30,000 = 20,000) and the relevant multiplier for the age of 21 years is 18 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- (20,000x18=3,60,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount of compensation granted comes to Rs. 3,80,000/- (3,60,000 + 10,000+10,000 = 3,80,000). 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,63,000/- to Rs. 3,80,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay the compensation at the rate of 70% viz., Rs. 2,66,000/- and respondents 3 and 4 shall pay the compensation at the rate of 30% viz., 1,14,000/- as the accident occurred due to the composite or contributory negligence of the drivers of the jeep and the tractor and the contributory negligence of the driver of the jeep was fixed at 70% and the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor was fixed at 30% by the Tribunal. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 7% per annum. The amount of compensation granted shall be apportioned as per the apportionment followed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) scale 129