THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.612 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award in O.P.No.751 of 2000 dated 30-04- 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellants are the parents of the deceased Sridhar, who died in the accident occurred on 28-03-2000. It is the case of the appellants that while the deceased was going to Yadagirigutta on a scooter bearing registration No.AP 28 L 9316 with his friend, a Tipper bearing registration No.AP 16 U 246, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit the scooter and caused the death. The appellants claimed that the deceased was a contractor in the Indian Oil Corporation and also running a STD booth and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. They claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent No.1 (owner of vehicle) remained ex parte and the second respondent Insurance Company denied the allegations and contested the claim. The Tribunal, on the basis of the material placed before it, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. While computing the monthly income at Rs.2,000/-, purportedly deducing 1/3rd, assessed the dependency at Rs.800/- per month. Taking the age of the mother at 40 years into consideration, applied ‘16’ multiplier and awarded Rs.1,53,600/- towards the pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all Rs.1,56,600/-. Not satisfied with the said award, claimants are filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. Since this appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into. The only point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in this appeal and if so, to what amount. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was a contractor with the Indian Oil Corporation and that he was also running a STD booth and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, in his evidence reiterated the said fact. In the cross-examination by the Insurance Company except suggesting that the deceased was not a contractor and work orders and bills were created documents, nothing more was elicited. The claimants also filed the petty “work orders” filed as Exs.A8 to A14, which show that the deceased was attending to minor works such as, replacement of pipelines, supply and fixing the pipes, dismantling of concrete slabs and removing old pipelines, supplying and fixing tube lights, junction boxes, repairing manhole covers etc. In order to support the contention that the deceased was running STD booth, the claimants examined P.W.3 from whom the deceased took the booth on lease under Ex.A7. P.W.2 in his deposition stated that the deceased entered into agreement with him for the lease of the shop for three years and he was getting Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the lease deed was a fabricated document. The Tribunal did not place reliance on Ex.A8 to A14 on the ground that the claimants did not adduce evidence to prove the said documents. Ex.A7 was not taken into consideration on the ground that it was not a registered lease deed. It is true that the persons concerned with Exs.A8 to A14 were not examined and that Ex.A7 was an unregistered document. However, the said document cannot be discarded totally. P.W.2 in his evidence, which was not impeached by the Insurance Company, categorically stated that the deceased was a contractor and also running a STD booth. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the deceased was earning at least a sum of Rs.3,000/- per moth as against Rs.2,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried and the age of the mother was 40 years. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC [1] 50% is liable to be deducted from out of the said amount and taking the age of the mother, ‘15’ multiplier should be applied. Calculating on the said basis, the pecuniary loss would be Rs.2,70,000/- (i.e., Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000/- - 50% = Rs.18,000/- x 15). As against the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,53,600/- only towards pecuniary loss. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the difference of Rs.1,16,400/- as enhancement. The Tribunal although awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transport and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, has not awarded compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.1,21,400/- (Rs.1,16,400/- + Rs.5,000/-). It is therefore to be held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,21,400/. The said enhanced amount shall carry an interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Award in the O.P.No.751 of 2000 is accordingly modified and the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30th July, 2010. skmr [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121