IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.437 of 2011 Between: T. Lalamma .. Petitioner/Respondent No.1 AND The United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Respondent/Appellant T. Gangamma & 2 others .. Respondents/Respondents 2 to 4 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.449 of 2005 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant AND T. Lalamma & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.437 of 2011 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.449 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award, dated 02.11.1998, in M.V.O.P.No.274 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that Telugu Ankanna, aged 20 years, working as a mason, was going on 12.12.1996 at about 10.20 a.m. to attend his work when tractor-trailer Nos.A.P.21-U-0351 and A.P.21-U-0352, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against him near the Paper Mill at E.Thandrapadu Village. He sustained injuries and was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and died on 18.12.1996 while undergoing treatment. Consequently, his mother, sister and brother sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer. 3. The owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer opposed the claim denying the averments of the claimants. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the subsistence of the insurance policy and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 and B-1 were marked during the enquiry before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award relying on Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-3-Charge Sheet corroborating the claims of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, and P.W.2, the eye witness. The Tribunal concluded that the accident was probablised to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer. The insurance policy between the respondents was concluded to be in force in view of Ex.B-1-copy thereof and the Tribunal, while accepting the age of the deceased to be 20 years as mentioned in Ex.A-2-Post Mortem Certificate, found that the income of the deceased as a mason can be taken as only Rs.30/- per day, notwithstanding the claims of the mother about his earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal rounded off the income of the deceased to Rs.1,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive and arrived at the loss of dependency by applying the multiplier 16. The Tribunal, apart from awarding Rs.1,34,400/- towards loss of dependency, also awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation of Rs.1,38,900/- was directed to be apportioned between the parties, while the compensation was also directed to carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. The insurer is before this Court against the said award challenging the quantum of compensation on the ground that the age of the mother and not the deceased had to be taken into consideration for working out the multiplier and the appropriate multiplier would have been only 12.79 for the age of the mother at 40 years as per BHAGAWAN DAS VS. MOHD. ARIF[1]. The insurer also challenged the grant of funeral expenses and desired the impugned award to be reversed. 7. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants. The 4th respondent, owner of the tractor and trailer, remained absent before this Court also. 8. The insurer or the owner did not challenge the joint and several liability to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Telugu Ankanna and it is only the quantum of compensation that has to be reassessed in this appeal. 9. It is true that in assessing the loss of dependency through application of an appropriate multiplier, the age of the dependent mother would have been the basis for arriving at the appropriate multiplier and not the age of the deceased as laid down in the precedent cited in the grounds of appeal and even otherwise. However, if the age of the mother were to be taken as 40 years at the relevant time, as stated in the cause title of the claim petition, and if the multiplier adopted by SARLA V E R M A AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[2] were to be followed, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. It is well settled that fixation of a multiplier is only in approximation and not in mathematical precision and the Apex Court recognized even the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, containing discrepancies and errors in that regard in SARLA VERMA’s case (2 supra) itself. The Apex Court also observed therein that Tribunals/Courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers and consequently, the adoption of multiplier 16 instead of 15 need not be disturbed at this distance of time, more so, in the face of the decrease in the value of the rupee between 1998 and now. 10. Coming to the deduction to be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, SARLA VERMA’S case (2 supra) laid down that in case of the death of a bachelor and the claimants are parents, normally 50% is to be deducted on this count. The principles laid down by the Apex Court for the reasons stated in para 15 of its judgment have to be followed herein, while the monthly income rounded off to Rs.1,000/- per month for the purposes of assessment was not shown to be in any way less than the minimum wages payable to masons at about the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. If 50% were to be so deducted, the balance will be Rs.500/- per month or Rs.6,000/- per annum and on application of multiplier 16, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.96,000/-. As per SARLA VERMA’s case (2 supra), the claimants are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and the total compensation payable, therefore, comes to Rs.1,06,000/-. The compensation has to be restricted to the same. 11. Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant also questioned the grant of interest at 12% per annum, but it is not seriously in dispute that at the time of grant of such interest by the impugned award, the then prevailing bank rate of interest was 12% per annum only. Given the increasing inflation and decreasing purchasing capability of a rupee, there is no need to disturb even the rate of interest which is within the judicial discretion of the Tribunal, at this distance of time. 12. In M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.437 of 2011, the first claimant filed a copy of the death certificate of the third respondent herein and stated in the affidavit in support of the petition that she is the only legal representative of the third respondent herein, thus, becoming entitled to his share of the compensation as apportioned by the impugned award. In the absence of any objection from any other claimant, the request has to be considered. 13. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.437 of 2011 is allowed and the share of the deceased third respondent herein in the compensation shall also be paid to the first respondent herein. The impugned award, dated 02.11.1998, in M.V.O.P.No.274 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is modified by restricting the compensation to Rs.1,06,000/- payable with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The said compensation shall be shared between the first and second respondents (first respondent being entitled to her share and the share of the third respondent) in the same proportion in which it was directed to be apportioned by the impugned award. No directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered, accordingly, without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 9th August, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.437 of 2011 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.449 of 2005 Date: 9th August, 2011 KL [1] AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 99 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298