THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 875 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellants-claimants filed this appeal against the judgment dated11.12.2007, passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- as against their claim for Rs.25,00,000/-, contending that the same is on the lower side and needs enhancement. On 01.04.2006, at about 8.00 p.m., while the deceased along with others were traveling in an auto bearing No. AP 13W 9736 from Srisailam towards Hyderabad, at Katra Gate in Mahabubnagar District, a jeep belonging to respondent No.1, and insured with respondent No.2, coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the auto. The auto turned turtle, the deceased and his brother one Sri. Devender, sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries. They were shifted to the Government Hospital, Kalwakurty, and from there, while they were being shifted to Osmania General Hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellants-claimants filed claim petition before the Court below stating that at the time of the accident the deceased was an Engineering Final year student. Apart from studying, he was doing part-time job and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contribute the same to the maintenance of the family, and on account of his death, they have lost the source of income for their maintenance, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte, while respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations made by the appellants-claimants in the claim petition. Before the Court below, the appellants-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked documents Exs. A1 to A14, while on behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined, but no document was marked. The Court below having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the appellants- claimants failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and, therefore, it took notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule and as the deceased was not married, took the age of his mother, who was aged 37 years for the purpose of applying the relevant multiplier, and by applying the multiplier 16, worked out the compensation payable at Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of contribution to the family, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The appellants-claimants claimed that the deceased was studying Engineering Final Year and by doing part-time job in Inmac Computer Institute. To show that the deceased was earning Rs.,10,000/- per month, produced Ex. A14. Though the appellants- claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and examined P.W.3 to prove the same, the fact remains, Ex. A14 produced by them showed that the income as Rs.8,000/- and this apart, P.W.3, who claimed to be the owner of Inmac Computer Institute did not produce any material to show that he was the owner of the said Computer Institute. As the appellants-claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, the Court below took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No doubt the appellants- claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased, but the fact remains, the deceased at the time of his death in the accident, was studying Engineering Final Year, which is not disputed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company. This Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union[1], held that an Engineering graduate at the inception of his service would earn anywhere between Rs.12,000/- and Rs.15,000/-. In view of this, the income of the deceased, who was studying Engineering Final Year can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the said amount should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus deducted, his contribution to the family can be fixed at Rs.6,000/-, which would come to Rs.72,000/- per month. In case of death of bachelors, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration, for applying the relevant multiplier. The Court below considering the fact that the age of the mother of the deceased was 37 years, applied the multiplier of 16, but as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the relevant multiplier that has to be applied to a person aged 37 years is 15. By application of the said multiplier, the annual loss of contribution to the family due to the death of the deceased would come to Rs. 72,000/- x 15 = 10,80,000/-. The Court below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Having regard to the above judgment of the Apex Court, the compensation awarded under the said heads has to be reduced to Rs.10,000/- towards love and affect, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and accordingly they stand reduced. Thus in all, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,02,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the appellants- claimants. All the appellants-claimants are entitled to equal share as directed by the Court below. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 8th August, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (DB) [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121