HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.996 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.57 of 2001 dated 19-08-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are minor children of the deceased Smt. M. Seeta Devi, who died in the accident occurred on 06-12-1999. Claimant No.3 is the grandmother and natural guardian of claimant Nos.1 and 2. The respondent is the APSRTC. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 06-12-1999 at about 1-10 PM, at Guntupally Bus Center, while the deceased was boarding the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 3262, as the driver of the bus moved the bus suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, she fell down on the road divider, sustained multiple injuries and died. She was a widow and was working as Manager – cum – Astrologer in Sri Dattatreya Jyothishya Vastu Vidya Peetham, Vijayawada and earning a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. She was the only bread earner in the family and due to her sudden demise, claimant Nos.1 and 2, who are minor children, became destitute. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. 4. The respondent Corporation filed its counter denying the case of the claimants and also its liability for payment of compensation contending that due to carelessness and reckless attitude of the deceased herself accident took place and she died. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP9Z 3262 by its driver ? 2. What is the ‘just’ amount that can be awarded as compensation and against whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, the driver of the bus involved in the accident was examined as RW.1 but no documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record and taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards her personal expenses (Rs.3,000/- x 1/3 = 1,000/-), which comes to Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.3,00/- - Rs,1,000/-) and Rs.24,000/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to her family, and applying multiplier 15 treating her age as 40 years as per Ex.A-4 postmortem report, awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 15) towards loss of dependency apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection by the children of the deceased, totalling to Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. However, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Since the respondent Corporation has not preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and its liability for payment of compensation. 9. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inadequate ? 10. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the deceased, who was a widow and aged 40 years as per Ex.A-4 postmortem report as on the date of accident, was working as Manager – cum – Astrologer in an Astrology – cum – Vastu Institution and earning a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month and the same is proved by the evidence of PWs.2 and 4, the employer of the deceased and its Chartered Accountant respectively, coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A-5 and A-6, salary certificate of the deceased and copies of the income tax returns of the employer of the deceased. However, in spite of sufficient material on record to show the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month only instead of Rs.4,500/- per month apart from adding some amount towards her house hold duties and enhancement in her future income. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself is on higher side and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation, and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 12. As seen from the impugned order, claimant Nos.1 and 2, are minors aged about 9 and 7 years at the time of accident i.e., on 06-12-1999 and still their studies might not be completed. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal has not added anything towards enhancement in future income of the deceased. Hence, I am of the view that awarding another Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the claimants towards enhancement in future income of the deceased would meet the ends of justice and the same is accordingly awarded. 13. Thus, the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only). The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 alone are equally entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Claimant No.3 is not entitled to any amount out of the enhanced compensation. The withdrawal of the compensation by claimant Nos.1 and 2 shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV