THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.741 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award in M.V.O.P.No.180 of 1999, dated 01- 07-2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents, claimant Nos.3 and 4 are brothers and claimant No.5 is sister of the deceased Pedababu, who died in the accident that occurred on 12-02-1999. On 12-02-2009, the deceased, while proceeding in a lorry bearing registration No.AP 5 X 2382, the vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed road dividers and as a result of which, the vehicle overturned and caused the death. The deceased was the cleaner of the said vehicle. According to the claimants, he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, they filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. The third respondent (Insurance Company) filed counter and opposed the claim. The Tribunal formulated the necessary issues, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent. The first claimant examined himself as PW.1 and further examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The third respondent did not adduce any evidence. Based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal although found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2,500/- per month, computed the contribution to the family at Rs.500/- only and applying ’14.81’ multiplier, awarded Rs.88,860/- towards the pecuniary loss. In addition, Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal also held that claimant No.2, mother of the deceased, alone was entitled for compensation. Not satisfied with the quantum and the exclusion of other claimants, this appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As the appeal is at the instance of the claimants, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into in this appeal. The only point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and whether all the claimants are entitled for share in the amount. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a cleaner. It is the case of the claimants that he was earning a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month in addition to Rs.500/- as batta. To support the said contention, P.W.3, who is the owner of the vehicle, was examined. He stated in his evidence that he used to pay the said amounts to the deceased, however, no documentary evidence was adduced. Since it is not disputed that the deceased was working as cleaner, the evidence of P.W.3 to the extent that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month can be accepted. Since the deceased was unmarried, it is settled that the age of the mother should be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that the mother was aged 35 years. The assumption of the Tribunal that the contribution was only Rs.500/- towards the family is not well founded and on the other hand it is contrary to the settled law. In Sarla Verma Vs. DTC[1] the Apex Court while considering the principles relating to award of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act held that in the case of bachelor 50% amount should be deducted from the assessed income. The Apex Court further held that in the case of a person aged 35 years, the multiplier is ‘16’. Following the said judgment the contribution of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.1,250/- per month. Calculated on the said basis, the pecuniary loss would be Rs.2,40,000/- (1,250 x 12 x 16). It is therefore to be held that the compensation of Rs.88,860/- awarded by the Tribunal is neither adequate nor represents just compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. In the result, it is to be held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,51,140/- in this appeal. Although the Tribunal held that claimant No.2 (mother) alone is entitled for compensation, I am of the view that the father, being a dependent, is also entitled for a share in the compensation. In the result, the Award in M.V.O.P.No. 180 of 1999 dated 01-07-2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada is modified holding that the claimants 1 and 2, being the father and mother, are entitled for the compensation, including the enhanced amount of Rs.1,51,140/-. The said enhanced amount shall carry an interest at 6% per annum from the date of this judgment i.e., 12-08-2010, till the date of realization. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th August, 2010. Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.741 of 2003 Date : 12-08-2010 Between : Bathina Bhudevudu-alias-Raju and four Others .. Appellant and Penkey Seetha Ramayya and two others .. Respondents [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121