THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.3721 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.08.2005 passed in O.P.No.1702 of 2003 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimants are the appellants herein. They filed the said O.P seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one E. Parvathamma in a road accident on 14.03.2003 involving a tipper bearing AP 9 V 296. 2. The facts stated are:- On the fateful day, the deceased along with others were travelling in a DCM van bearing registration No.AP12U4472 to go to Hyderguda, Rajendra Nagar Mandal and when the van reached Jhangirabad, the tipper in question came in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in high-speed and hit the DCM van in which the deceased and others were travelling and due to the impact of the same, the deceased received injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The first claimant is the husband and the other claimants are the children of the deceased. To prove their claim, the husband of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the copy of the charge sheet, Ex.A-3 is the copy of the motor vehicles inspector report and Ex.A-5 is the copy of the Inquest Report. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, on the point of culpability in causing the accident, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper in question and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. There is no dispute as to the nature, date and place of the accident and the deceased died in the said accident involving the tipper in question. In the light of the Ex.A-1 to A-4 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tipper in question, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant interference. Coming to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was aged 29 years as on date of the accident and she used earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing labour work. Considering the age of the deceased at 29 years, her income can be taken at Rs.2,500/- which annually comes to Rs.30,000/-. From this amount 1/3rd has to be deducted towards her personal expenses and after deduction, it comes to Rs.20,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘17’ and if applied the amount comes to Rs.3,40,000/- (20,000 x 17) towards loss of contribution to the family of the claimants. In addition to this amount the claimants are also entitled to amounts of Rs.20,000/- under the two conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate totalling to Rs.3,60,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. 5. In the result, the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed,J 10-3-2011 Nrg THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3721 of 2005 March 10, 2011 NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129