IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 2360 of 1998 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 464 of 1996 dated 01/07/1998 on the file of the court of thePrincipal District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B.Nagar) Between: 1 M. Kantha Rao S/o. M. Venkaiah, R/o. Allaganpadu Village, Vaidevalur Mandal, Nellore district. 2 Smt. M. Manyamma W/o. M. Kantha Rao, R/o. Allaganpadu Village, Vaidevalur Mandal, Nellore district. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 B. Balraj S/o. B. Ramulu, Major, R/o. 16-11-741/5B, Gaddiannaram, Hyd. 2 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd Rep. by its Divisional Manager D.O. III, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.BADRI.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA FOR RR2 The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2360 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased. In the accident dated 09.06.1996 their only son aged 19 years suffered an accident when the offending lorry bearing No.AP11 T 2363 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the cycle, which the deceased was riding. A case in Cr.No.125 of 1996 was registered against the driver for rash and negligent driving. The claimants filed the present claim petition being O.P.No.464 of 1996 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal below granted compensation of Rs.48,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, aggregating to Rs.63,000/-. To the extent of the disallowed claim the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 2. So far as the issue of rash and negligent driving is considered, the finding of the Tribunal below is in the affirmative holding that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. On issue No.2 also the Tribunal below has found that the said vehicle was covered by the Insurance Policy issued by the second respondent. So far as the claim for compensation is concerned the Tribunal below assessed the dependency by treating that the earning of the deceased was only Rs.600/- per month as against the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that it was Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the aforesaid finding, on the earning of the deceased, is wrongly assessed by the Tribunal below. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 categorically shows that deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.100/- per day, but the said evidence was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal below, though there is no contra evidence. He also contends that the appropriate multiplier was also not applied to the facts of the case taking into consideration the deceased was only 19 years old and even going by the age of the parents, the mother who is younger is only 40 years. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is absolutely no evidence to ensure that the deceased was an earning member, as PW.2, the employer of the deceased, is admittedly a friend of PW.1 - father of the deceased, and PW.2 has not produced any account books or documentary evidence of his carrying on any business or that of employing the deceased as a worker under him. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the finding of the Tribunal below that the deceased was not earning was not substantiated by any evidence. 5. In the light of these contentions the only question that falls for consideration is how the dependency of the deceased is to be assessed? 6. It is not in dispute and the evidence also shows that the deceased was not a labourer and was said to be working with PW.2 as mason for three years prior to his death. Though PW.2 stated that he was paying Rs.100/- per day to the deceased and thereby taking the monthly earnings to Rs.3,000/- per month, giving appropriate discount to the said statements we can safely assess the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal below disbelieved the evidence of PW.2, but it has be noted that PW.1, the father of the deceased, has come to the Court and deposed about the work, which the deceased was doing and his earning and the same is supported by evidence of PW.2. PW.2 being only a small time employer it would not be expected of him to maintain account books and documents and registers as if it were a big business, which he was carrying out. The Tribunal below also has accepted that the deceased was earning and it is only the difference in quantum, which falls for consideration. To my mind, therefore, the deceased can be said to be earning at least Rs.2,500/- per month, which works out to Rs.30,000/- per year. As per the latest decision of the Supreme Court Case in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] the personal expenditure of a bachelor like the deceased have to be taken at 50% and thereby his contribution to the family works out to Rs.15,000/-. The age of the deceased was 19 years where as the age of the mother claimant is 40 years. Keeping in view the age of the younger of the parents i.e., the mother, as 40 years, applying multiplier ‘12’ would be appropriate. The assessment of dependency, therefore, works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The award under the appeal, therefore, deserves modification and the compensation of Rs.48,000/- granted by the Tribunal below towards loss of dependency deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,80,000/- without disturbing Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of estate. With the above modification, the appeal accordingly is allowed in part. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.08.2009 MD [1] 2009 1 DECISIONS TODAY 292