THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2308 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 11.03.2011, in O.P.No.906 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.9,72,120/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Md.Jaffar Qureshi, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28/29.10.2009. 1st claimant is the wife; claimants 2 and 3 are the children and 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was travelling on a scooter from Yakutpura ato Koti, and near Railway bridge, Malakpet on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 16V 2374 by its driver, the vehicle dashed against the scooter resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. A case in Cr.No.379 of 2009 was registered against the driver of the lorry. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 40 years and was doing business in vegetables etc., and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Appellant- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,72,120/- with interest @ 7.5%p.a., from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal questioning the quantum. 7. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from vegetable business, they failed to adduce any evidence in support thereof. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses his contribution to the family was taken as Rs.5334/- per month, which comes to Rs.64,008/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘15’ the Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.9,60,120/-. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 41 years. As per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’, but not ‘15’ for the person aged 41 years. Applying the multiplier ‘14’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.8,96,112/-. Claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,16,112/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th December, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy [1] 2009 (6) scc 121