IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1126 of 2008 Between: Bommani Laxmamma @ Gangamma & others … Appellants And: R Yusuf Ali & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1126 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2007 in OP No.300 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by the appellants herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellants herein ﬁled claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Jangaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.04.2004. The ﬁrst claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling in a Piagio auto bearing No.AP 24 U 8860 to Ankireddiguda village and that when the auto reached Mallikarjuna school, a lorry bearing No.TN 28 Y 7369 coming in the opposite direction, dashed against the auto, due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. A case in Cr.No.138 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as driver and earning Rs.5000/- per month. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The insurer ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. 5. 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 lorry by its driver and the said ﬁnding is not challenged by way of any appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-. Not satisﬁed with the said amount, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the evidence on record established that the deceased was working as a lorry driver, the Tribunal has taken his income at a very low amount of Rs.2,000/- per month and applied lesser multiplier of ‘15’. 7. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as lorry driver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The evidence on record established that the deceased was a lorry driver by profession. The claimants did not however adduce any evidence in support of their plea that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Though they ﬁled Ex.A.7 salary certiﬁcate, they have not examined the employer or any one connected with Ex.P.7.In the absence of any proof of contents of Ex.P.7, the Tribunal has rightly refused to take the same into consideration. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only at Rs.2,000/- per month, which appears to be very low, having regard to the fact that even an ordinary labourer doing hard labour, can be reasonably expected to earn Rs.100/- per day towards wages. It is therefore considered just and appropriate to take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As the deceased has left four dependents, 1/4th thereof has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009(6SCC 121] and the loss of contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,250/- per month or Rs.27,000/- per annum. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged 35 years and as per the above decision, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘16’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,32,000/- [Rs.27,000/ x 16]. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the ﬁrst claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,52,000/-, but the same is restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.12.2011 bss