THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.18 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order and decree dated 20.07.2005 in O.P.No.50 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners-claimants are the parents and sisters of the deceased, who claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Bikshapathi. 2. Heard. 3. According to the petitioners-claimants, on 29.11.2001 at about 1.00 a.m. near Hasith Aromatic Factory, Hyderabad, on Srisailam road, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP36U-6129 parked it in front of the factory, at that time, another vehicle bearing No.AP12T-3010 coming from Hyderabad side at high speed, in which the deceased was a cleaner, dashed the parked lorry, on account of that the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a cleaner. The first respondent in the O.P. remained exparte. Second respondent filed counter denying the allegations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP12T- 3010? 2. Whether the accident vehicle was insured with R2 and there is any violation of policy conditions? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, from whom and tom what extent? 5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked. 6. On the basis of the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.2,28,000/-. 7. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company contends that the compensation awarded is on higher side. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is on higher side? 8. According to the father of the deceased, who is examined as P.W.1, the deceased was his only son and working as a cleaner. He was aged 20 years, earning Rs.3000/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- a day and the court below held that the deceased was aged 18 years and his income was Rs.2,000/- per month. No reason was given as to why the court fixed the income at Rs.2000/- per month, when the evidence of P.W.1 the father of the deceased is that it was Rs.3000/- per month apart from batta of Rs.50/- a day. The learned Judge also deducted 1/3rd out of the total income, but as he was an unmarried person, 50% ought to have been deducted from out of his total earnings. As referred above, the Court below without giving any reasons, has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month, when the evidence is Rs.3,000/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- per day. If the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- a day, it would comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. No doubt, definitely there would be exaggeration with regard to the income for claiming higher compensation. Even 50% of the same is taken into consideration, that comes to Rs.2,250/- per month, annually it comes to Rs.27,000/-. If 50% is deducted from out of that Rs.27,000/- towards personal expenses, the net contribution to the family would come to Rs.13,500/- per annum. If multiplier ‘13’ is applied, the compensation comes to Rs.1,75,500/- and if other heads, i.e., loss of estate and funeral expenses are added, the total compensation that can be awarded is Rs.1,80,000/-. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- only instead of Rs.2,28,000/- as awarded by the Court below. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed reducing the compensation from 2,28,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/-. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 21st October 2010, Rns