IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1145 OF 2007 BETWEEN The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …APPELLANT AND Surasani Laxmamma and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. KOTA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. U.P. RAO The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2004 dated 30.11.2006. 2. The claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein related to compensation on account of death of the husband of the first claimant, who died in a motor vehicle accident dated 02.12.2003 while he was traveling in an auto bearing No. AP 22 U 6844. The said accident is alleged to have caused by the said auto being driven in a rash and negligent manner when it dashed against a tree resulting in instantaneous death of the husband of the first claimant. The first respondent in OP i.e. respondent No.4 herein is the owner and appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. On the basis of the evidence led by the claimants i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4 – FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report and Charge Sheet respectively coupled with the evidence of appellant’s representative as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 marked through him, the tribunal came to decide the first issue in favour of the claimants by holding that the evidence of P.W.2 fully supports the nature of the accident, as alleged by the claimants and held that it is caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On issue No.2, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 70 years and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The tribunal, therefore, felt that the case fully answered the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and as per the structured formula under the second schedule, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased arrived at Rs.10,000/- and multiplier 5 was applied. The loss of consortium and loss of estate, however, were awarded by the tribunal at Rs.15,000/- each and in aggregate the tribunal awarded Rs.82,000/-. 4. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised two specific contentions viz. that when compensation is awarded following second schedule appended to the Act the loss of consortium and loss of estate awarded by the tribunal is on a much higher side. According to the learned counsel the loss of consortium can be only Rs.5,000/- as per clause 3 of the second schedule and loss of estate could have been only Rs.2,500/- . On both the said counts, the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires modification. Learned counsel also submits that interest awarded at 7.5% per annum is also excessive and it is necessary to scale it down to 6% per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the deceased was 70 years old, this Court may not interfere with the aforesaid components of compensation. 6. I have considered the said contentions on either side. It is, no doubt, true that the income of the deceased was assessed at less than Rs.40,000/- and thereby under Section 163-A of the Act, the tribunal was justified in assessing compensation in the manner in which it has arrived at the dependency of Rs.50,000/-. The other amounts added thereto viz. loss of consortium and loss of estate are, however, clearly on a higher side than what is provided under the second schedule of the Act and the same, therefore, is necessary to be scaled down to the permissible figures under clause 3 of the second schedule. Accordingly, the loss of consortium and loss of estate awarded by the tribunal below at Rs.15,000/- each stands modified to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,5000/- respectively. Similarly, the interest awarded by the Supreme Court in recent decisions consistently being at 6%, the interest at 7.5% per annum awarded by the tribunal deserves to be scaled down to 6% per annum. Except the modification, as aforesaid, the rest of the award does not warrant any interference. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, therefore, allowed in part to the extent of modifying the compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively and the aggregate amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 20, 2010 DSK