IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2516 of 2003 Between: Madanu Nakshthramma & 4 others .. Appellants AND S. Srinivasulu & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2516 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P. Subhash Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. A. Malathi, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer. Respondents 1 and 3 did not enter appearance in this appeal. 2. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 06.03.2003, in O.P.No.1416 of 2001. 3. The factual background for the appeal is that on 09.05.2001, Balaraju alias Bala Swami was going on scooter bearing No.AP 22-A-976 as a pillion rider sitting behind and Md. Khaja was driving the scooter. At about 6.00 p.m., near Pedda Cheruwu of Bhongir town, a tourist bus bearing No.AP10-T-8676, driven rashly and negligently at a high speed, dashed against the scooter from the opposite direction. Both Balaraju and Md. Khaja died on the spot due to fatal injuries and, hence, the wife, son, daughter and parents of Balaraju filed the petition for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner, insurer and driver of the bus. 4. While the claim petition against the driver was dismissed for default, the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, but the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations in the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 and B-1 during the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-2-Charge sheet, Ex.A-3-scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.A-4-Inquest Report and Ex.A-5-Post Mortem Report proved in corroboration with the eye witness account of P.W.2 that the rash and negligent driving of the bus caused the accident and death of Balaraju. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased only at Rs.1,500/- per month though Ex.A-1-First Information Report specified him to be working as a Cook Master and Ex.A-10- Salary Certificate mentioned him to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 1/3rd of the assessed income was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. On application of a multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.2,04,000/-, apart from Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. On the total compensation of Rs.2,37,000/-, interest was awarded at 9% per annum and the apportionment and manner of disbursement were also directed by the impugned award. 7. The claimants challenged the same in this appeal contending that the loss of dependency should have been calculated on a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- paid to the deceased Balaraju as a Cook Master in Rose Land Dhaba accepting Ex.A-10-Salary Certificate. In fact, P.W.1 was examined to prove the salary of the deceased Balaraju and the entire compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed for, should have been awarded. 8. While the claim was dismissed against the driver before the Tribunal, the owner or insurer did not prefer any appeal or cross-objections and, therefore, the liability of the owner and the insurer of the bus to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Balaraju is not in issue. 9. The only question that remains for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 10. The impugned award itself speaks about the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, on oath about her husband earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Cook Master in Rose Land Dhaba for which she produced Ex.A-10-Salary Certificate. Still, the Tribunal criticized that no one was examined to prove the salary of the deceased Balaraju though the evidence of P.W.1 remained uncontroverted. Even the earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report, having been given by the employer of the deceased Balaraju, the hotel owner, stated the deceased to be working as a Cook Master. P.W.2 was in fact, a colleague of the deceased and he stated that the deceased was getting Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. P.W.2 was not referred to at all in the impugned award. 11. Even assuming that P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A-10 were an obvious attempt to exaggerate the probable income of the deceased with a view to get higher compensation, the learned counsel for the appellants made available a copy of G.O.Ms.No.13, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.II), dated 05.05.2000, which was in force with effect from 09.05.2000 at the relevant time to show that in respect of clubs and canteens, the minimum wage of a Head Cook was Rs.4,034.50 Ps. and of a Cook was Rs.3,121.75 Ps. Even if the fact that the deceased was stated to be a Cook Master and not an ordinary Cook were to be ignored and the minimum wages fixed for a Cook at the relevant time were to be taken as the basis rounding off the same to Rs.3,200/-, the loss of dependency would have to be calculated by deducting 1/4th of the assessed income in the light of the dependents being 5 in number, as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. On the balance of Rs.2,400/- per month or Rs.28,800/- per year, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of 31 years of the deceased is 16 as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1). The total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,60,800/- and as per the same ratio, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. This takes the amount that has to be granted at a minimum towards compensation to the claimants to Rs.4,80,800/- which can be rounded off to Rs.4,80,000/-. Deducting the compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- already awarded, the balance of Rs.2,43,000/- has to be awarded now. 12. Coming to the interest payable on the enhanced portion of the compensation, in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid by the insurer since the date of the petition till the date of payment, the same can be restricted to 6% per annum. 13. Accordingly, the award, dated 06.03.2003, in O.P.No.1416 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The enhanced portion of the compensation also shall be apportioned between the claimants in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned. No further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2516 of 2003 Date: 28th July, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298