JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimants/appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.3105 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.5,62,000/- for the death of the deceased Anji Reddy in a motor accident against the claimed amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2005, while the deceased was going on his scooter on left side of the road, a lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and hit against scooter causing death of Anji Reddy on the spot. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. by milk vending.

3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the lorry driver did not possess valid driving licence and that the conditions of policy are violated and there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and that the compensation is exorbitant.

4. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, no witness was examined, but Ex.B.1 copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.

5. The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence held that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded an amount of Rs.5,62,000/- with interest at 7.5%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the deceased was eking out his livelihood as milk vendor and he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. He submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Sadik and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex has taken Rs.6,500/- as monthly income of the vegetable vendor. He submits that even multiplier that was applied is ‘15’ by the Tribunal was not correct, as the correct

1 2014 ACJ 627

multiplier is ‘16’. However, he does not dispute the fact that towards personal expenditure 1/4th should have been deducted, instead the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd. It is further submitted that the amounts were granted under the heads of consortium and the loss of estate and funeral expenses were also not as per the settled law.

7. Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that the compensation that was claimed is Rs.6,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.5,62,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the said amount granted by the Tribunal is excessive. He submits that when there are six claimants instead of deducting 1/4th the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd. Learned counsel submits that even the interest that was granted at 7.5% is excessive. Questioning the same, the Insurance Company filed MACMA No.5348 of 2008 before this Court.

8. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was a milk vendor and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the claimants that in Sadik’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of vegetable vendor has taken the monthly income as Rs.6,500/-. As such applying the said ratio, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- and 40% future prospects would be Rs.2,600/-, then it would come to Rs.9,100/-. As there are six claimants, 1/4th has deducted towards personal expenses, after deduction the income would be Rs.6,825/- (9100x ¼ = Rs.2,275/- and the multiplier for the age of 30 years is ‘16’’, then it comes to Rs.13,10,400/- (Rs.6,825 x 12 x 16) towards loss of dependency. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, under the head of consortium they are enti