IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.109 of 2009 Between: Animela Chand Beebee & another … Appellants And: S Akbar Ali & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.109 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.08.2007 in MVOP No.29 of 2004 on the file of the MACT cum II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, wherein, the said application filed by the appellants herein claiming compensation was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.82,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their son by name Rasheed, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.04.2003. According to the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, on that day, the deceased was returning home along with his friends on a bicycle near Anandasramma cross roads, a lorry bearing No.AP 04 T 5173 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the bicycle of the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- by attending to electrical and motor vehicle repairs at Mydukur and was aged 20 years. 4. The first respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter, denying their liability. During enquiry before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the appellants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding remained unchallenged, as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, making up a total compensation of Rs.82,000/- and accordingly, the said amount was awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the said award, the present appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month by doing motor and electrical repair works. The appellants however did not adduce any evidence and did not file any income certificate showing the avocation of the deceased or his income there from. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as contemplated in the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of dependency, without indicating any basis as to how the said amount was arrived at. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. The age of the mother is therefore to be taken in to consideration for computing the loss of dependency. The 2nd appellant-mother of the deceased was admittedly aged 38 years. As per the decision of the Sarla Varma’s case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 38 years is ‘15’. Taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum into consideration and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards funeral expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.10,000/- and applying the multiplier ‘15’, the loss of dependency works to Rs.1,50,000/-. The appellants are further entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as per the II Schedule. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation Rs.1,54,500/- and the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum over the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. In the circumstances, the impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.06.2011 bss