IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.796 of 2003 Between: Mamidi Sreenu and others ..... PETITIONERS AND K. Srinivasa Rao and another .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT: The claimants preferred this appeal against the award dated 04-10-2002 made in O.P.No.815 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Prl. District Judge), Nalgonda, claiming enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the claims Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 03-04-2001 the deceased Yellappa was going to Mandal Revenue Office by walk and when he reached near Mandal Revenue Office at about 2.00 p.m. at Thipparthy, one tanker bearing No.AP-27-T-8411 which was proceeding from Nalgonda to Miryalguda side, being driven by its driver Poosala Krishna Rao, in rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against the deceased from his behind. The deceased sustained injuries and died at the spot. The first respondent is the owner of the tanker and second respondent is the insurance company with which the said tanker was insured. The deceased was aged about 37 years, and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as labourer. The claimants 1 to 4 are the children and fifth claimant is the mother of the deceased and they were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. They filed a claim petition alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them and they claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent remained ex party and the second respondent filed a counter denying the material averments made by the claimants. 5. The claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues. On behalf of the claimants the fifth claimant was examined as PW-1 and one Epuri Prasad was examined as PW-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no documents were marked on their behalf. 6. The claims Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a total compensation of Rs.87,000/- to the claimants. The claims Tribunal has taken the income of deceased as Rs.750/- per month and applied ‘12’ multiplier. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal ought to have been applied ‘16’ multiplier taking the age of the deceased as 35 years and his income ought to have been taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that even a minimum wage during the year 2001 was only Rs.1400/- per month for labourers and therefore, the income of the deceased cannot be taken more than Rs.1400/- per month. 9. The only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ? 10. POINT: It is not in dispute that the deceased died in a motor accident and the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurance company with which the tanker was insured. Admittedly, the claimants 1 to 4 are the children of the deceased and fifth claimant is the mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown as 40 years in the inquest report and also in post mortem examination report. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ where the age of the deceased or injured as the case may be is between 36 to 40 years. Therefore, in this case since the deceased was aged 40 years the appropriate multiplier to be taken is ‘15’. 11. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, his occupation, age and the number of dependents depending upon him should be considered. The claimants specific case is that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as labourer. In view of the several judgments of this Court and as well as Apex Court, holding that the income of a house wife or labourer should be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, I consider it just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As far as the deductions are concerned, 1/4th has to be deducted where the number of dependents is 4 to 6. In this case dependents are four. Accordingly, if 1/4th that is deducted from the loss of earnings, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2250/- P.M. Then the annual loss of earnings come to Rs.27,000/- [2250 X 12]. If ‘15’ multiplier is applied to the annual earnings, the total loss of earnings is come to Rs.4,05,000/- [27,000 X 15]. 12. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,15,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to 6% per annum interest on the compensation amount. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that unless the claimants amend their claim petition, they cannot seek more compensation. In view of the settled legal position, I cannot agree with his submission. When a report submitted by the Police under Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be treated as an application for compensation wherein these will be no specific claim, it becomes the duty of the Court to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. Thus it is clear that irrespective of the claim of the claimants, the Tribunal has to award just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, though the claimants have claimed only Rs.2,00,000/- compensation I consider it just and reasonable to award the amount as determined above which appears to be just and reasonable compensation. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J June 24, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.796 of 2003 June 24, 2011 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121