HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 990 of 2002 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: 1. S. Akhila 2. S.Kalidas 3. S. Indira Rani .. Appellants And 1. M. Maheshwar Reddy 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated 12.07.2001 in O.P. No. 1223 of 1998 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that they are the daughter and the parents of the deceased – S. Ravi Kumar. On 15.08.1998, at about 08.00 P.M., while the deceased and his friend were returning to Hyderabad on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 28J 2564, and when they reached Milk Chilling Centre, at Rama Munthala village, one Lorry bearing No. AP 12T 4548, which was coming from opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the Motorcycle, due to which, the deceased and another person sitting behind him, fell down, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. Hence, the claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for the death of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 - Insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is stated the petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and that the insurance policy was in force as on date of the accident. It is also averred that the claim is excessive. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the deceased died in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 12T 4548 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? In order to substantiate their case, the 2nd petitioner got himself examined as PW1 besides examining two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B.1 – policy was got marked but no oral evidence is adduced. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, and granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 09.11.1998 till realization of the amount. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that the even though the deceased was earning Rs.5,834/- per month by working as Salesman in two organizations, and his age at the time of accident was 28 years, the Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly income very low and also in taking the multiplier “9” instead of appropriate multiplier i.e. “17”, and the compensation granted by it is not just and reasonable, and prays that the compensation may be enhanced. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company appearing for the 2nd respondent has contended that the Tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation, and the same cannot be interfered with, and prays to dismiss the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent, causing the death of the deceased. However, the compensation granted by the Tribunal appears to be quite low. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as Sales-man in Hindustan Lever Limited and drawing a sum of Rs.3,834/- per month as is evident from Exs.A9 and A10 – salary certificates apart from getting Rs.2000/- per month by working as Sales-man in M/s.Sai Kiran Wines, this Court fixes his monthly income as Rs.5,250/-. If one-thirds is deducted from his monthly income towards his personal and living expenses, it comes to Rs.3,500/- p.m. (Rs.5,250/- - Rs.1750/-) x 12 = Rs.42,000/- per annum. As it is stated that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, and this fact remains unrebutted, the appropriate multiplier would be “17”. If the same is applied, it comes to Rs.42,000/- x 17 = Rs.7,14,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,34,000/- (Rs.7,14,000/- + Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-). However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby reduced to 7% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. With the above modification of the impugned order, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj