THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.366 of 2000 JUDGMENT: Smt.Gnanamba, wife of the 1st appellant and mother of appellants 2 to 5, was travelling from Tirupati to Madhurai in a Jeep, bearing No.AP 03 C 5252, on 26.05.1996, on the way at Tirukoiluru-Madupattu, in the State of Tamilnadu, the driver is said to have lost the control and the jeep dashed against a tamarind tree. Gnanamba received serious injuries and died, while shifting to hospital at Tirupathi. Crime No.348 of 1996 was registered by the S.H.O., Tiruvennamalai, against the driver of the jeep, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, under various provisions of I.P.C. The appellants ﬁled M.V.O.P.No.31 of 1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, claiming Rs.2,50,000/-, as compensation. They stated that the deceased was aged about 60 years and she was contributing to the extent of Rs.4,000/-, per month, to the family. The 1st remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by the 2nd respondent by ﬁling counter. It was pleaded that the vehicle was used in contravention of the conditions of insurance policy, and as such, they are not liable to pay compensation. Through its order, dated 08.10.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/-, as compensation. The appellants seek enhancement of the same. The 1st appellant died during the pendency of the appeal. A memo is ﬁled to the eﬀect that all the legal representatives of the 1st appellant are already on record, as appellants 2 to 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The fact that an accident occurred and the deceased died therein is evident from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and ﬁled Exs.A.1 to A.3 – certiﬁed copies of FIR, inquest report and post-mortem certificate. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred due to rashness on the part of the driver and no appeal is preferred against the said finding. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal treated the deceased as house wife and took the monetary value of her contribution to the family at Rs.500/- per month. Multiplier ‘5’ was applied taking the age of the deceased as 60 years. If one goes by the II-Schedule, appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, it becomes clear that in case no evidence as to the proof of income of the deceased is adduced, Rs.15,000/- can be treated as annual income. One-third of it, needs to be deducted towards her personal expenditure. The record discloses that the deceased was aged 60 years. The multiplier applicable for that age is ‘8’. Her contribution to the family would be Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency by the appellants would be Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ to the 1st respondent. The same does not warrant any interference. A sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, the C.M.A., is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7%, per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.11.2011 GJ