IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.242 of 2002 Between: B.Devanna And others …Appellants AND T.C.Kesanna And others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.242 of 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.413 of 1998 dated 19.06.2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). The appellants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.2,50,000/- vide orders in I.A.No.768 of 2000 dated 28.08.2000 on account of the death of B.Peddaiah. As appellant No.1, B.Devanna died and appellants 4 and 5, B.Pedda Kasamma and B.Chinna Kasamma respectively not being dependents of the deceased, the Tribunal dismissed the petition in respect of these persons. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is also not insisting the appeal relating to appellants 4 and 5. Hence, this appeal is being proceeded with in respect of appellants 2, 3, 6 and 7 only. Appellant No.2 is mother and appellant No.3 is wife of the deceased namely B.Peddaiah. Appellants 6 and 7 are his children. 2. On 17.04.1998, when the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing registration No.AP 21 T 6855 to his village, A.Gokulapadu, the driver drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which, it turned turtle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed in the Government Hospital, Kurnool. The first respondent – owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the second respondent – Insurance Company resisted the claim by putting the claimants to strict proof of the accident and denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of P.W.3 - eyewitness to the accident, Ex.A.1 – Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.15 of 1998 of K.Nagulapuram Police Station and taking into consideration that the first respondent who himself was the owner of the auto remained ex parte, recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash negligent manner. This issue is not under challenge in this appeal since no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. 3. Although appellants claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,70,500/- only, fastening the liability on both the respondents. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants filed the present appeal. 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, to what amount. 5. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.50/- per day. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying 12.79 multiplier, awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,480/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,500/-. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded entire compensation claimed by the appellants. Per contra, Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, contended that the Tribunal granted just compensation and that the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement in this appeal. 7. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the deceased was working as a maistry – cum – hamali in a Rice Mill at Kurnool. P.W.2 was a worker under the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was working in two capacities – one as Maistry (Supervisor) of the Rice Mill and also as Hamali and earning Rs.100/- per day. Notice can be taken of the fact that the wages payable to a Supervisor would be more than the wages payable to Hamali. A Hamali merely works as a manual coolie, while a Maistry would perform extra work of supervision of other Hamalis also. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the deceased would be earning at least Rs.70/- per day. The fact that the age of deceased was 40 years at the time of the incident is not disputed. The fact that the Tribunal applied 12.79 multiplier for calculating the dependency is also not disputed. Thus, the annual dependency of the deceased would be Rs.16,800/- {Rs.70/- x 30 x 12 = 25,200/- – 8,400/- (1/3rd) = 16,800/-}. Applying the same multiplier i.e. 12.79 as applied by the Tribunal, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,14,872/- (Rs.16,800/- [x] 12.79), whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,53,480/- only. Thus, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.61,392/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. I am of the view that the appellants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- on this account. Thus, they are entitled for enhancement of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. I am of the view that these amount are just and reasonable. In all, the total enhancement of compensation would be Rs.66,392/- rounded off to Rs.66,400/-. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the appellants are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.66,400/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Each of the appellants is entitled for share in the same proportion as directed in the award of the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, the award in M.V.O.P.No.413 of 1998 dated 19.06.2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, is modified to the extent indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI February 11, 2010 Bvv