THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No.90 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2007 in OP No.605 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,95,440/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurer. Perused the record. 3 The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter by name Shruthi who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.04.2005. According to the claimants on that day the deceased was going to her college on cycle and at about 9.30 AM a tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 16 F 2086 and AHW 8311 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple head injuries and died in Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. According to the claimants the deceased who was aged 18 years was studying first year B.Tech in SRKR Engineering College, Bhimavaram. The first Respondent / owner of the tractor remained ex parte. The second Respondent / Insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 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 tractor by its driver and further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,95,440/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. Not satisfied with the award, this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. 4 The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver is not challenged and admittedly no appeal is filed by the insurer questioning the award. 5 The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. by rendering tuitions to intermediate students, but the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the Tribunal having estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- p.m, however, taken the contribution of the deceased to the family only at Rs.2,000/- p.m. 6 The learned counsel for the Respondent / Insurer on the other hand would contend that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was rendering tuitions and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. and further the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- also has no basis and it is only notional. 7 It is not in dispute that the deceased was studying First year B.Tech course at the time of accident. The FIR, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report also would describe the deceased only as a student. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was rendering tuitions or earning any income as claimed by the claimants / appellants. In the absence of any such evidence, the claim of the appellants that the deceased was an earning member of their family and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. remains totally unsubstantiated. Hence question of enhancement based on the alleged income of Rs.3,000/- by way of rendering tuitions does not arise. 8 The Tribunal, having regard to the fact that the deceased was an engineering student, estimated her income at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and further estimated her contribution to the family at Rs.2,000/- p.m. As the deceased was only a student, the said estimation of Rs.5,000/- p.m. as income is notional and the contribution of Rs.2,000/- out of it to the family is also notional. There is absolutely no basis for making any such estimation. When once it is found that the deceased was only a student and a non-earning member of the family, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the notional contribution of the deceased to the family can only be put at Rs.10,000/- p.a. As the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother i.e. second appellant was rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. As the second claimant was aged 37 years, the suitable multiplier as per the decision of the apex court in Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], would be 15. The loss of dependency based on the notional income as per the II Schedule of the M.V. Act, would therefore be Rs.1,50,000/. But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,71,440/-, which in fact is on the higher side. Even if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/- p.m. notionally as done by the Tribunal, still the Tribunal was justified in taking certain amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and taken the contribution only at Rs.2,000/- p.m. Thus, viewed from any angle the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is more than just and fair compensation. 9 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to each of the claimants which came to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total amount awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs.2,95,440/-. As the insurer has not filed any appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal, the amount awarded cannot be disturbed in the present appeal. In the circumstances it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for enhancement of the compensation. The impugned award, therefore, does not call for any interference. 10 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ----------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. 21.06.2011 Kvsn [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121