IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2509 of 2007 DATE:07.12.2010 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anantapur …… Appellant And Ramavath Chandrasekhar Naik and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2509 of 2007 JUDGMENT: After obtaining requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the lower Court at the appropriate time, the insurance company filed this appeal questioning quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur in O.P.No.438 of 2005 at Rs.2,89,000/- by award dated 09.11.2006. 2) In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of accident in which the deceased woman died and about the accident vehicle being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at that time. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded. The lower Tribunal notionally fixed income of the deceased woman at Rs.3,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 28 years, multiplier of 17.086 was taken in calculating the compensation amount. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the multiplicand arrived at by the lower Tribunal is excessive and is not based on any evidence. The claimants are husband and two minor children of the deceased. It is their contention that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by tailoring work besides doing household work and that the deceased was also earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- as income from the lands. They have filed Ex.A-4 copy of No.2 adangal in this regard. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent/1st claimant who is husband of the deceased was working as Mandal Surveyor in Singanamala Mandal of Anantapur District. Even if notional income of the deceased wife is taken as 1/3 of income of her husband who is a Government servant working as Mandal Surveyor, the amount comes to more than Rs.3,000/-. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the multiplicand arrived at by the lower Tribunal is proper and in no way excessive. I find that compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable. 3) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 07, 2010 ksh