IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.58 OF 2006 Dt.15.2.2010 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada … Appellant And Andru Sesharatnam and others … Respondents MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.85 OF 2006 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kakinada … Appellant And Andru Lakshmi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.58 AND 85 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two motor accident civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of a common accident. National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in M.A.C.M.A. No.58 of 2006 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A. No.85 of 2006 -- the original petitioners in the respective O.Ps -- claimed to be the wife and children of the deceased Somaraju, who died in a lorry accident on 16.12.2001. They filed the O.Ps under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. O.P. No.675 of 2002 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A. No.85 of 2006 was the lead O.P., and was first decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, East Godavari (for short, “the Tribunal”). Following the Award in the said O.P., O.P.No.186 of 2002 filed by the appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.58 of 2006 was disposed of with the direction that the common amount awarded in both the O.Ps shall be apportioned among the parties depending upon the adjudication by the competent Civil Court as to the real legalheirs of the deceased. The facts of the cases are as under. The deceased – Somaraju, who was aged 45 years at the time of the accident was an employee working in Horlicks Factory. According to the claim of the respondents - original petitioners, the deceased was drawing Rs.8,328/- per month. While the deceased was proceeding on a cycle to his factory, lorry bearing No.AP 13V 4689 came from Vemagiri side and hit him resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. The Tribunal has framed three issues. Issue No.1 was whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, respondent No.1 in the O.Ps. Issue No.2 related to quantum of compensation payable, if any, and issue No.3 pertained to the relief which the respondents - original petitioners were entitled to be granted. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A. No.85 of 2006 examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 on their behalf, and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the appellant – insurance company. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held point No.1 in favour of the original petitioners by holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal placed reliance on Ex.A.4 – certificate pertaining to last pay drawn by the deceased. Though the gross pay under the said certificate was shown as Rs.10,740.75 ps., the Tribunal has taken the figure of Rs.8,000/- per month as the last drawn pay, in view of the claim of the original petitioners that the deceased was drawing Rs.8,328.90 ps. per month. The Tribunal has deducted 40% as estimated personal expenditure of the deceased employee and has accordingly taken 60% of his income as contribution to the family. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 13 and arrived at the total compensation amount of Rs.7,48,800/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards all non-pecuniary heads of compensation and accordingly it has awarded Rs.7,63,800/- as total compensation. At the hearing Ms. G. Premalatha, learned Counsel representing Smt. W.V.S. Rajewari, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation and therefore the Award is liable to be set aside. Having carefully heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] analysed the judgments in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas[2], U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra[3] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Charlie[4]. In order to avoid inconsistency in the fixation of quantum of compensation by various Accidents Claims Tribunals in the country, the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra) has standardized the method of calculation of compensation. In column 4 of the table given in paragraph 40 of the judgment, it has fixed appropriate multipliers to be adopted in the case of the deceased depending upon their age. Under the said table, if the age of the deceased is between 41 and 45 years, multiplier of 14 is required to be adopted. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased, which was 45 years. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 13, which is on a lower side than what has been fixed by the Supreme Court. As regards the salary, even though Ex.A.4 contains higher sum, as noted above, the salary was taken as Rs.8,000/-, having regard to the claim made by the original petitioners in the O.P. The deceased’s contribution to the family was taken as 60%, which is well below the percentage fixed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a married person, contribution to the family should be taken as two-thirds of the income. As against this, the Tribunal has fixed only 60%. Thus, examined from the law settled by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra), I am of the view that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just, legal and reasonable. I do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. ________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.2.2010 bnr [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] (1994) 2 SCC 176 [3] (1996) 4 SCC 362 [4] (2005) 10 SCC 720