THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1818 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 10.08.2004 in O.P.No.466 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, questioning the quantum of compensation. The claim was made for recovery of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of wife of the 1st petitioner in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioners, on 19.02.2002 when the deceased along with her husband, the 1st petitioner, was returning in the auto, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-V-7398 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, she suffered injuries and died. The deceased was said to be aged about 45 years and working as an agent of Life Insurance Corporation and postal insurance and paying income tax and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurance company and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of the petition averments and denying the validity of driving license of the driver and insurance policy. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, but, however, the lower Tribunal did not accept the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It considered the income only at Rs.2,000/- per month, deducted one-third of the same income towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier ‘12’ and granted the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that Ex.A-11 shows that the deceased was paid Rs.4,500/- for being an advisor to the Little Flower Public School, Peddapalli. The lower Tribunal did not discard the evidence, but found that the deceased was an earning member of the family. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the income of the deceased has reasonably fixed at Rs.2,000/- and one-third is deducted towards her personal expenditure and the annual contribution comes to Rs.24,000/-. Since the deceased was said to be aged about 45 years, the multiplier ‘12’ applied by the lower Tribunal appears to be proper and the compensation, which the petitioners are entitled, is Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.24,000/- X 12). The petitioners are entitled to non- pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- and the 1st petitioner, who is husband of deceased, is granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium. Therefore, the total compensation, which the petitioners are entitled, is Rs.3,08,000/- rounded off to Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand only). The interest at 7.5% per annum shall carry on the enhanced amount. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1818 of 2011 DATE: 29-08-2011 MR