R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short the Act ), is filed by the Appellants, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in M. O. P. No. 679 of 2001, dated 29-/-2004.

( 2 ) THE said claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased, who was their son and who died in a motor accident, which took place on 1 -6-2000. As averred in the claim petition, it was their case that the deceased was a diploma holder in electrical and he was working as a Supervisor with the 1st appellant herein. It is stated that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter, which was driven by the 2nd appellant herein. When they were proceeding near ramabadrapuram, the Scooter met with an accident, the deceased fell down from the scooter and received serious injuries. Immediately the deceased was admitted to a private hospital by name Seven Hills Hospital at Visakahapatnam, and subsequently the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The claim was made on the ground that due to untimely and sudden demise of the deceased, the parents lost dependency.

( 3 ) THE appellants herein resisted the claim before the Tribunal below and while denying the allegations of the claimants, it was the case of the appellants herein that the deceased himself drove the vehicle on the date of the accident and on his own negligence the Scooter met with an accident and he suffered severe injuries. Precisely it was the case of the appellants that as the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased, they are not liable to pay compensation.

( 4 ) WITH reference to the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 31 M 5606 (Scooter) by its driver? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief?

( 5 ) TO prove the claim, on behalf of claimants, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R. W. 1 was examined, and exs. B-1 to 8-9 were marked.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal beiow, while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the 2nd appellant herein. Though it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month and was contributing his substantial earning to the claimants, the Tribunal below assessed the earnings at Rs. 1,500/- per month, and after deducting one-third of the same towards personal expenses, has taken the contribution of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing the compensation. But however the Tribunal below has taken into account the age of the deceased which was 23 years and applied the multiplier as 17 and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,04,000/ -.

( 7 ) IN this appeal it is submitted by sri Jayanti S. C. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing forthe appellants that the Tribunal below ought not to have applied the multiplier 17 for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is excessive and exorbitant. It is also their case that inasmuch as the deceased was the son of the claimants, the Tribunal below ought to have considered the age of the motherforthe purpose of applying the relevant multiplier. It is further submitted that the respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation only by applying the multiplier as per the table notified by this Court in Bhagavan Das v. Mohd. Arif.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Smt. Anjana Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document