HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :4321 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 20.7.2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P. No.245 of 2002, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.3.2002, while the deceased Rajasekhar was bringing Nandi Pipes through lorry bearing Registration No. AP 21 U 2320 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent and by the time, it reached near Gudipadu Village on Kadapa-Kurnool main road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the opposite lorry bearing Registration No. AP 04 U 1050. As a consequence the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he succumbed to the same. Hence, the appellants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 21U 2320 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling as P.W.2. Exs. A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the appellants-claimants. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was let in. However, Ex.B1, insurance policy was marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. However, while taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, by applying the multiplier of 12, it determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,44,000/-. In addition to this, the appellants were also granted an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.500/- towards transportation and another sum of Rs.500/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants contended that even though the appellants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 prove that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- by doing cultivation, the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal also did not apply proper multiplier while determining the compensation amount. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, supported the impugned Award of the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal while taking into account the age and earnings of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier ‘12’ and awarded the compensation and the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. She also examined the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling at the relevant point of time as P.W.2. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 14.3.2002. He further deposed that on the date of the accident while they were going on the left side of the road, the driver of the offending lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against it. As a result, the deceased died in the said accident. The appellants also filed Exs. A1 to A4 to prove that the deceased died in the said accident. However, no oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents to disprove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.2 and Exs. A1 to A4, disbelieved the said plea and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent alone. In so far as income of the deceased is concerned, according to the appellants-claimants, the deceased was working as a Village Servant and was earning about Rs.1,500/- per month besides earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through cultivation. They also examined P.W.3 and filed Ex.A7, lease agreement to prove that the deceased was doing cultivation. However, the Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the appellants except relying on the oral testimony of P.W.3, did not file any cultivation account or other revenue records, which would disclose the income the deceased. Though there is no evidence to show that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum by doing cultivation, I feel it appropriate to take the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- and Rs.24,000/- annually. However, in the instant case, since the number of dependant family members of the deceased are four, 1/4th of the amount needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and while following the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS([1]), I deem it appropriate to deduct ¼ of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, after deducting an amount of Rs. 6000/- towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family is assessed at Rs. 18,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of the incident, while following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the deceased would be 14 and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.18000 x 14). In addition to this, the appellants- claimants are awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium instead of Rs.15,000/- and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate. However, the amount of Rs.500/- each awarded by the Tribunal towards transport charges and funeral expenses needs no interference. In all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- instead of Rs. 1,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the d petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129