IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2784 of 2003 Between: A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its General Manager, Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Vasa Parvathi & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Mohd. Arif Ali for Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy SC for APSRTC Counsel for respondents 1-6: Sri I. Gopal Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2784 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 11.09.2002 in O.P.No.37 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru (for short, “the Tribunal”). The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No.2 in the O.P. filed by the respondents herein, who were the legal representatives of late Vasa Venkata Chiranjivi Rao (for short, “the deceased”) filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the award of compensation by the Tribunal. The said O.P. was filed for payment of compensation of Rs.8,77,764/- for the death of the deceased by his widow and children. On the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant, the Tribunal has held that the respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,47,000/- towards compensation. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the respondents have filed their claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 11, as envisaged in Schedule II, which is applicable only to the claims made under Section 163-A of the Act. Though there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] even if this plea is accepted, there will not be any change in the outcome of this case, because in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court held that the appropriate multiplier in respect of the deceased aged between 51 and 55 is 11. In the instant case, admittedly the age of the deceased was 53. Therefore, whether the Tribunal was correct in placing reliance on the second schedule or not, the multiplier adopted by it, is in consonance with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal on this count cannot be interfered with. Lastly the learned counsel urged that award of interest at 9% per annum is on a higher side. In my opinion, the award was passed in the year 2002 at which time award of 9% interest per annum was considered to be reasonable. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.11.2010 ES [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)