THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.1370 OF 2005 DATED: 24-03-2011 BETWEEN: T.ANJAIAH AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANTS AND SMT.L.PADMAVATHI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.1370 OF 2005 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order dated 29-12-2004 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge cum Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.269 of 2002. Appellant No.1-T.Anjaiah and appellant No.2.Smt.T.Ramulamma are parents of the deceased Late Mr.T.Srinivas and they filed the O.P. alleging that on 25-6-2001 at 5.00 a.m. when the lorry bearing No.AP 9T 2565 driven by its driver of which, the deceased was cleaner, started from Martur of Guntur District to Hyderabad and when it reached Venugonda by-pass road, a lorry came in the opposite direction suddenly and due to focus lights the driver of the lorry, in which the deceased was cleaner, applied sudden brakes as a result of which the deceased who was sitting in the cabin fell down and sustained head injuries. He was immediately shifted to osmania General Hospital for treatment, where the duty doctor, who examined him declared him as dead. The Police Santhamagulur of Prakasam District registered a case in Cr.NO.47 of 2001. It is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as he was working as a cleaner in the crime lorry and that due to the sad demise the appellants have to file claim petition before the court below for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Originally the owner and insurer were shown in the array of respondents 1 and 2, subsequently having learnt that respondent No.1 sold away the vehicle to one N.Padmavathi, she was brought on record as 3rd respondent in the O.P. 1st respondent was set exparte on 31.1.2003. 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their counter affidavits separately and contended that the accident had not occurred as projected by them on account of rash and negligent driving of that lorry driver resulting in the death of deceased. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed therein is excessive and that even if the appellants were entitled to any compensation, the respondents are liable only to the extent of No Fault Liability. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether T.Srinivas died in a motor accident on 25-06-2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry No.AP 9T 2565? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the appellants, appellant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and appellant No.2 was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 RWs.1 and 2 were examined and exhibits B.1 to B.5 were marked. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of the claimants and the evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and exhibits B1 to B5 of the respondents therein, applying the principle of res-ipsa loquitur, rightly so, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and by following the judgment in BHAGWANDAS V. MOHD. ARIF[1] applied multiplier as 13 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,91,071/- to the appellants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation; the awarded amount was directed to be apportioned between the petitioners equally and the petitioners were directed to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- initially and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of five years, and they were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- after expiry of initial 30 months period and the balance with accrued interest thereon, after expiry of remaining 30 months period. Further, the respondents 2 and 3 were directed to deposit the said awarded amount within 2 months. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the deceased was working as Cleaner in the crime lorry on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-, and that the Tribunal had not taken the salary as Rs.2,500/- instead had taken Rs.1,818/- only and had not applied the proper multiplication method for awarding the just and reasonable compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel supported the impugned order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Cleaner in the crime lorry and was aged 20 years and was unmarried at the time of his death, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased shall be taken as Rs.2,200/- per month and yearly income comes to Rs.26,400/- (12 x 2200) and that after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses the loss of dependency annually comes to Rs.17,600/-(26,400 – 8,800). Considering the fact that the deceased died at the age of 20 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), is 13, and hence the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,28,800/- ( i.e. Rs.17,600 x 13 = 2,28,800). An amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards love and affection, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and mental agony and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,91,071/- to Rs.2,53,800/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24-03-2011. TNB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.1370 OF 2005 Dt: 24-3-2011. [1] AIR 1988 AP 99