HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.642 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, the present appeal is filed by the respondent therein. The appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. is the respondent in M.V.O.P.No.642 of 2002. Respondent No.1 herein is the husband and respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Arthiti Nagendram, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 02.02.2002. They filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- for the death of A.Nagendram. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. mainly urged that the Tribunal/Court below grossly erred in applying the multiplier “16” instead of “15”. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Learned counsel further urged that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and the police, without assigning any clinching evidence, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the Court below with regard to the offending vehicle is sustainable? In order to prove the accident and the claim of the petitioners, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were got marked. As seen from the F.I.R. and the investigation report, it is to be noticed that the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of eyewitnesses, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9599. Admittedly, the driver-RW.3, who was arrayed as accused in the criminal case, faced trial before the criminal court. In view of filing of the charge sheet in the criminal court against the driver of the offending bus and the evidence of the driver-RW.3, it is cogent that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and accordingly the finding of the Tribunal with regard to offending vehicle is sustainable. The next point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is justified? Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the husband of the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner died after filing the present petition. According to the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident and that she was a housewife. The Tribunal fixed the earnings of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Though it is contended that the assessment of the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum is exorbitant, I see no grounds to disallow the same as the services of a mother cannot be equated with money. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum is sustainable. However, with regard to the multiplier, the Tribunal awarded compensation by applying the multiplier “16”, but as per the judgment in Sarla Varma’s case referred supra, for a person aged 36 years, the multiplier “15” has to be applied, and in the case on hand, the age of the deceased is determined as 36 years as per petition, charge sheet, inquest report and post mortem report. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in computing the compensation towards loss of dependency by applying the multiplier “16” is not sustainable, and the compensation towards loss of dependency is to be granted by applying the multiplier “15” in the light of the judgment in Sarla Varma’s case. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 2/3 x 15) towards loss of dependency. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner died after filing of the petition, and therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and the same holds good. However, an amount of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of domestic services is disallowed. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. I find no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on these aspects. In total, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.1,50,000 + 5,000 + 15,000 + 5,000) against the respondent. With the above modification, this appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 08.06.2011 v v [1] 2009 ACJ, 1298