HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO. 1912 OF 2006 and Cross Objections (SR) 21862 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against award dated 01-08-2005 passed in O.P.No.222 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur. The appellant is the Insurance Company and the claimants also filed cross objections for the sake of convenience, it will be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. 2. The facts stated are:- One Sunkanna (since deceased) was working as a Junior Lineman in A.P. Transco, Anantapur, and apart from that he was also looking after his agricultural fields at Vannedoddi village. It is stated that on 09- 04-2002 at about 04.00 P.M, when the deceased was going on the extreme left on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-C-5202 from Gooty to Vannedoddi to look after his agricultural works, a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-02-G-5653 driven by the driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction and as a result, he fell down and sustained head injury and died on the spot leaving behind his wife and three children. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. 3. The owner of the accident car in question filed his counter, denying the alleged rash and negligent driving by the Tata Sumo driver and the other allegations of the claimants. He also stated that the alleged accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself and the compensation claimed is excessive. It was also stated that the crime vehicle was insured with the second respondent-insurer and as the policy was in force on the date of alleged accident, the second respondent-insurer is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The second respondent-insurance company also filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition. 4. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues as to the culpability for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. On behalf of the claimants PW. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 which happened to be F.I.R, Post Mortem Certificate, Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, Charge sheet and Salary Certificate. None was examined on behalf of the respondents, but got marked Ex.B-1-copy of Insurance Policy. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced on the point of culpability in causing the accident held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident car in question which in the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced, does not warrant any interference. Coming to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence of PW.1 who is none other than the wife of the deceased that the deceased was working as Junior Lineman in A.P. Transco and was getting an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from agriculture. Ex.A-5 is the salary certificate and to prove the same, PW.3 – Executive Engineer, A.P. Transco, Kurnool was examined. As on date of the accident, the deceased was aged 50 years. Appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘13’. As per Ex.A-5 salary certificate, the deceased was drawing Rs.12,322.50ps per month and after statutory deductions, the take home salary was Rs.9,351.50 ps which annually comes to Rs.1,12,218/-. Out of this amount 1/4th is to deducted towards the personal expenses as there are four in number which comes to Rs.84,163.50 (1,12,218 – 28,054.5) and after applying multiplier ‘13’ the amount comes to Rs.10,94,125.50 ps towards loss of dependency. In addition to this amount, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the two conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate, totaling to Rs.11,14,125.50 ps which is rounded of to Rs.11,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 6. For the above reason, the appeal is dismissed and cross objections are partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 03,2011 SP/KK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO. 1912 OF 2006 and Cross Objections (SR) 21862 of 2006 March 03, 2011 SP/KK [1] 2009 (6) scale 129