IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1329 of 2004 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 136 of 2002 dated 22/11/2003 on the file of the court of theI Additional District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B.Nagar) Between: M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd Hyderabad The Senior Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Div Office-VIII, Ameerpet, HYDERABAD. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Kadiam Karuna D/o.Late Ram Babu R/o.H.No.16-8, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, HYDERABAD. 2 Mr.P.Ranga Reddy S/o.Narasimha Reddy R/o.H.No.2-2-185/55/5, Bagh Amberpet, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.V.K.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.VISWARUPA CHARY The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 1329 of 2004 Judgment This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in O.P.No. 136 of 2002. The second respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. The facts are as follows: The petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased, K. Veeraswamy, aged 24 years, working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in Surya Lodging, Dilsukhnagar and earning Rs.4,000-00 per month. On 10-11-2001, the deceased along with one M. Srikanth went to Sanghi temple on motor cycle. At about 8.30 PM, while returning and when he reached Pedda Amberpet village on the out-skirts of Hyderabad city, the lorry bearing No.AP-04-T-5511 came in opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased was the pillion rider. The driver and the pillion rider, both died in the accident. The petitioner, who is the sole claimant, claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs. 3. The first respondent – owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance company filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial. i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-04-T-5511 at Peddamberpet village, R.R. District? ii) Whether the crime vehicle has got valid insurance policy covered with the second respondent? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, to what amount and against whom? iv) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-14 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial court granted compensation of RS.5.00 Lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum, though the claim of the petitioner was only Rs.3.00 Lakhs. As against the same, the insurance company filed the present appeal. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court could not have granted compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, when the claim was only Rs.3.00 Lakhs; the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister of the deceased, cannot be called as dependent on the deceased, who was also unmarried; the multiplier ‘10’ applied by the court below is not appropriate and the rate of interest awarded is also on high side. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent- petitioner submits that after taking into consideration all the material aspects, the trial court granted just compensation with appropriate rate of interest and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. There is no dispute about the death; age and approximate income of the deceased. The question is whether the petitioner can be called as dependent on the deceased; whether the multiplier applied is appropriate and whether the trial court erred in granting compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, when the claim was only Rs.3.00 Lakhs. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased, who was also unmarried. There appears to be no settled principle of law with regard to the multiplier that has to be applied in such cases. In case, the parents of the deceased are alive and when the deceased is unmarried, the principle is to take the age of the mother for fixing appropriate multiplier. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the case of the petitioner, who is the unmarried girl, aged 19 years, multiplier – either ‘5’ or ‘6’ has to be taken into consideration, as the deceased might have performed her marriage within 5 – 6 years. Though this contention has some force; it cannot be said that definitely the petitioner could have been married within 5 – 6 years. Further, in case the deceased was alive, he might have spent substantial money for the marriage of the petitioner, even after 5 – 6 years. From that point of view also, the compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs granted cannot be said to be on high side. 10. The court below observed that “in the event of the petitioner getting married, she would not have been depended on the deceased and she may even remained as spinster”. Considering all those probabilities, the dependency can be limited to certain period only and accordingly multiplier “10” would be appropriate for the case on hand. 11. In fact, the multiplier that was to be applied in the case of a person of “24” years would be “17”. As such for the reasons given by the trial court, the application of multiplier “10” would not look to be inappropriate. Further, the trial court has referred to a decision of our High Court in Pidigala Linga Reddy v. Srinivas[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that compensation in excess of the claim can be granted and following the above decision, granted compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, though the claim was only Rs.3.00 Lakhs. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant could not get to my notice any authority to the effect that the trial court cannot grant compensation in excess, than what is claimed in the petition. As such, in view of the decision of our High Court in Pidigala Linga Reddy (supra) it cannot be said that the court had no power to grant compensation more than what is claimed. In fact, it is a settled principle of law that the court can grant compensation than what is claimed i.e., just compensation. 13. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner could not have been treated as a dependent; multiplier “10” could not have been applied for and that higher compensation than what was claimed ought not to have been granted. 14. Next, coming to the rate of interest, in the present case, where more compensation is granted that what is claimed, I hold that interest @ 6% per annum would be appropriate. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed; however, modifying the rate of interest to 6% per annum. No costs. ________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 25, 2010. *BVS [1] 2001 (6) ALD 429 (DB)