IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.120 of 2008 DATE:08.12.2010 Between: Vadlamudi Aruna and others …… Appellants And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.120 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against award dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2004 contending that compensation awarded for death of the deceased Vadlamudi Srinivasa Rao at Rs.2,67,000/- as against claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is too low and unreasonable. 2) In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of accident involving A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1423 resulting in death of the deceased and about driver of the bus driving the same in rash and negligent manner. 3) The lower Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- and the age of the deceased at 45 years and selected multiplier as 13 and determined the compensation amount on that basis. The lower Tribunal awarded further compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funereal expenses. 4) It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the deceased was an agriculturist owning extensive lands noted in Exs.A-7 and A-8 pattadar pass books and that he was an agriculturist and also doing business in cotton and that his income should have been taken as minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year. P.W-1 who is wife of the deceased spoke to the said estimation of income of the deceased. She also filed Ex.A-6 certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Bejethpuram of Tadikonda Mandal and Ex.A-9 certificate issued by Sri Vigneswara Trading Company, Guntur. But none of the said certificates is a public document. No attempt was made by the claimants to prove those certificates by examining the persons who issued those certificates. Those certificates cannot be taken into consideration in determining income of the deceased. It is not disputed that the deceased was not an income tax assessee. No certificates are filed to show that the deceased was paying any sales tax in his alleged cotton business. It is not as if the alleged cotton business of the deceased was registered with the commercial tax department. In the absence of any proof in that regard, it cannot be taken that the deceased was doing business in cotton and earning any money. No account books are filed for the alleged business of the deceased, in order to prove his income therefrom. Further, there is no proof adduced by way of filing No.2/3 adangals to show what type of crops were raised in the lands belonging to the deceased and what was the realisation of those crops. In the absence of any such material before the lower Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the lower Tribunal rightly assessed income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- notionally. 5) With regard to age of the deceased, there is no material on record to show that the deceased was aged 45 years as fixed by the lower Tribunal. Age of the deceased was given as 35 years by the claimants in the claim petition. Secondly, in Ex.A-4 post mortem certificate, the doctor estimated apparent age of the deceased as 35 years. The lower Tribunal unnecessarily commented to the affect that it was not the claimants’ case that wife of the deceased was elder to the deceased. In the claim petition, her age was noted as 34 years in the year 2004. When she gave evidence as P.W-1, she has given her age as 37 years. It shows that P.W-1 was aged 33 years by the date of accident on 18.11.2003 and she was not elder to the deceased, but younger to the deceased. Finding of the lower Tribunal that the deceased was aged 45 years is erroneous. Basing on apparent age of the deceased noted by the doctor in Ex.A-4 post mortem certificate, the lower Tribunal should have taken his age as 35 years. For the age of 35 years, the appropriate multiplier is 16. If pecuniary compensation is calculated at the above rate after deducting 1/3 of income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, it comes to Rs.20,000/- x 16 = 3,20,000/-. Apart from non pecuniary compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- awarded towards funereal expenses, the appellants are entitled for another Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.3,32,000/-. 6) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed altering the amount of compensation payable in this case from Rs.2,67,000/- to Rs.3,32,000/-. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 08, 2010 ksh