HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.108 of 2008 Date: April 26, 2010 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 5th floor, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. … Appellant/Respondent No.2 And 1. Smt. T. Susheela and 3 others. … Respondents/Petitioners HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.108 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel representing appellant-second respondent and Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel representing contesting respondents-claimants. 2. Sri Kota Subba Rao would maintain that the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who made the order, had not made the correct award and excess calculations had been made and higher multiplier had been applied. Even if the facts and circumstances to be carefully examined, the multiplier to be applied would be 7 or 7.5 and not beyond thereto. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, proportionately the amount to be reduced by applying the correct multiplier. 3. On the contrary, Sri J. Kanakaiah would maintain that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the Tribunal below, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. Even otherwise if the age and the other factors would be taken into consideration, at the best, it can be said that the correct multiplier to be applied is 9 and definitely not 7.5 and, hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal below are either to be confirmed or at the best the same can be modified applying 9 multiplier. 4. Heard the counsel, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, for the trial of Jubilee Hills car bomb blast case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad. 5. The petitioners-claimants shown as respondents 1 to 3 in the present MACMA filed M.V.O.P. No.528 of 2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Act” for the purpose of convenience) read with Rule 455 of the M.V. Rules (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Rules” for the purpose of convenience) claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of death of one Sriramulu, the husband of first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 in the said M.V.O.P. 6. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 (in the present MACMA)- claimants that on 16.11.2003 at about 10-30 p.m. while T. Sriramulu was crossing the road near Chest Hospital of S.R. Nagar, one DCM van bearing No. AP 13 V 5637 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, dashed Sriramulu and he sustained grievous head injury in the accident. He was immediately shifted to St. Theresa Hospital and from there to NIMS Hospital to provide medical treatment. The duty doctor, who examined him, declared that he died. It is also stated that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van. 7. It is further stated that S.R. Nagar police registered a case in crime No.1305 of 2003 under Section 304 (A) of IPC against the driver of the said van. The deceased Sriramulu was working as Assistant Depot Controller in A.P.S.R.T.C. by the date of his death and he was earning Rs.9,550/- towards his salary per month and he is contributing the same for the purpose of maintenance of his family. The petitioners are the wife and sons of the deceased Sriramulu. On account of his sudden demise in the accident, they lost their support in the life and the first petitioner also lost her conjugal happiness. The deceased was aged 55 years by the date of his death and he was hale and healthy. Hence, the petitioners, who are wife and sons of the deceased and dependants on him, are entitled to compensation. The first respondent is the owner of the said van and the second respondent-Insurance company is the insurer of the said van and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 8. The first respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the said M.V.O.P. The second respondent-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the M.V.O.P. The accident had been denied. The rash and negligent driving also had been denied. The fact that the deceased was working as an employee earning Rs.9,550/- per month also had been denied and certain further facts had been pleaded. 9. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal below settled the following issues. (1) Whether the accident in question took place on 16.11.2003 at 10.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van bearing No.AP 13 V 5637? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 10. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and also marked Ex.B-1 and after recording findings came to the conclusion that the M.V.O.P. to be partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.7,11,550/- towards compensation to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award. No doubt, certain further directions also had been given. Aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. had been filed. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. (1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal below to be confirmed or to be set aside or to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled? 12. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in M.V.O.P. No.528 of 2004 aforesaid. 13. Point No.1: The petitioners-claimants filed the said M.V.O.P claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of death of Sriramulu. The respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled, the evidence available on record already had been referred to above in brief. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had been appreciated by the Tribunal at length and further Ex.A-1 FIR copy, Ex.A-2 report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate, Ex.A-4 salary certificate (pay slip), Ex.A-5 charge sheet, Ex.A-6 receipt of the New India Assurance Company, Ex.A-7 death certificate and Ex.A-8 MVI report also had been considered. Ex.B-1 insurance policy alone had been marked and none had been examined on behalf of the respondents in the M.V.O.P. 14. It is the case of the claimants that they are the wife and children of one Sriramulu who was working as an employee in APSRTC and on 16.11.2003 while the said Sriramulu was crossing the road near Chest Hospital of S.R. Nagar, one DCM van bearing No.AP 13 V 5637 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed, dashed Sriramulu who had sustained grievous head injury and due to the said accident succumbed to the said injury and the petitioners being legal heirs and dependants and being entitled for compensation had filed the said M.V.O.P. 15. The first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the eye- witnesses to the accident P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined. It is true that P.W.1 also had deposed though rash and negligent driving; it is needless to say that she was not an eye-witness. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is available on record and, hence, the Tribunal, on the aspect of rash and negligent driving and the accident in question or controversy, arrived at the correct conclusion. Hence, the said findings need not be disturbed. 16. It is the case of P.W.1 that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Even the same was suggested to P.W.1 in cross-examination. So, it can be taken that the age of the deceased at the relevant point of time was 55 years. Even otherwise Ex.A-3 post-mortem certificate also was taken into consideration in this regard. Hence, it was concluded by the Tribunal that as on the date of death the age of the deceased was taken as 55 years. This Court has no hesitation in accepting the said finding also. But however, while making calculations at para 11 of the award, the Tribunal applied 11 multiplier and no doubt certain submissions were made by the counsel on record. 17. Sri Kota Subba Rao contending that the right multiplier applied to be is 7.5 only and Sri J. Kanakaiah, on the contrary, contending that even if the age to be taken as 55 years, the right multiplier would give as 9. 18. On appreciation of the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of applying the relevant multiplier as 11, the right multiplier to be applied being 9, the same is being applied and it is needless to say that the compensation awarded in this regard to be rightly modified and if 9 multiplier to be applied in the quantum which had been awarded Rs.1,24,468/- to be deducted. It is needless to say that the compensation amount to be fixed is Rs.7,11,550/- wherein Rs.1,24,468/- to be deducted. That means the rest of the amount would come to Rs.5,87,082/- and accordingly the same is modified. 19. Point No.2: In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed modifying awarding of compensation proportionately reducing the sum of Rs.7,11,550/- to Rs.5,87,082/- by applying the correct multiplier of 9 as specified supra. Except this modification, in all other respects, the award is hereby confirmed. 20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: April 26, 2010. BSB