IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.11 OF 2008 Between:- Cheedalla Srinivas and 3 others …Appellants A n d Marri Lingaiah and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.11 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 02-08-2007 in O.P.No.396 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV- Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.32,000/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. None appeared for the first respondent, though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. The appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Cheedalla Chandrakala, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10-11-2004. The first appellant is the husband and appellants 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, when the deceased Chandrakala was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP24 V 3323 from Alia to Peddavoor at about 10-30 pm, on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver at high speed, the vehicle overturned near Lingampally and fell into a road side ditch, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased Chandrakala who subsequently died in Saikamala Hospital on 17-11- 2004, while undergoing treatment. A case was registered against the driver of the auto in Cr.No.102 of 2004 at Peddavoora P.S. According to the claimants, the deceased was running a vegetable shop and pan shop and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and contributing the same to the maintenance of the family. 4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the auto, remained ex parte and the second respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident took place on 10-11-2004 at about 10-30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 24 V 3323 by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondentd? If so, to what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The said finding had become final, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents questioning the same. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.32,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount. Not satisfied with the same, the claimants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 8. The only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and if so to what extent. 9. It is not disputed that the first appellant- claimant is the husband and claimants 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased Chandrakala. It is also not disputed that one year four months after the accident, the first claimant married a second wife. The tribunal has, therefore, held that the claimants are entitled to compensation by taking into consideration the said period of one year four months. According to the claimants, the deceased was running a vegetable shop and also a pan shop and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning any such income. The tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.2,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 16 months). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the tribunal grossly erred in ignoring the claim of the minor children notwithstanding the re-marriage of the first claimant. Maybe the first claimant is happy with the re-marriage, but claimants 2 to 4, the minor children of the deceased are certainly deprived of the contribution of the deceased to the family, either by way of her services or love and affection. On account of re-marriage of the first claimant, the worst hit are claimants 2 to 4. The tribunal had not chosen to estimate the loss of dependency by applying any suitable multiplier. The tribunal further erred in limiting the estimation of the compensation only for the period of one year four months, ignoring the fact that claimants 2 to 4 continued to suffer the loss of contribution from the deceased-mother even thereafter, either in terms of her services towards them or love and affection for them. 10. The amount of Rs.3,000/- per month, taken into consideration by the tribunal towards value of the services by treating the deceased as a housewife, is rather on the higher side. It is considered that the value of the services of the deceased to the family, particularly the minor children can reasonably be estimated at Rs.1,000/- per month. As the said amount reflects the value of the services but not any income, the question of deduction towards personal expenses does not arise. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 32 years by the date of accident and the suitable multiplier as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DEHLI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘16’. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency on account of loss of services of the deceased to the family works out to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 16). 11. It also not disputed that immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted to hospital on 10-11-2004 and while undergoing treatment, she died a week later on 17-11-2004. The evidence on record, particularly the medical bills, would show that the claimants have spent a sum of about Rs.40,000/- toward medical expenses. The claimants are certainly entitled to claim the said amount. The claimants are also held entitled to the conventional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. As the first claimant had re-married about one year four months after the death of the deceased, he is held not entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium. The claimants 2 to 4 are, however, entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of love and affection on account of tragic death of their mother. The claimants are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and other expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. Out of the said amount, the first claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- and claimants 2 to 4 each are held entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- with proportionate interest. The claimants are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal till realization. The amount awarded to the minor claimants shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank as may be ordered by the tribunal. The impugned award dated 02-08-2007 is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th June, 2010. Lrkm. [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)