HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :2144 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P. No.748 of 1999, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.1999, the deceased-Sathaiah on purchasing the clothes for his shop at Nakrekal boarded a lorry bearing No. AP-D- 5196 at Ramannapet and when the lorry reached the outskirts of Chityal, another lorry bearing No. AP-W-8478 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to the same. The deceased was aged about 42 years and was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellants, who are the wife and children of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed a counter affidavit 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 disputed the earnings of the deceased and the dependency. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 8478 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount ? 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 an eye witness to the incident as P.W.2. Exs. A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the appellants- claimants. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 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.1800/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, by applying the multiplier of 10, it determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,44,000/-. In addition to this, the appellants were also granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,69,000/- 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 filed Ex. A9, the Certificate issued by the Labour Department and Ex.A10, the Income Tax Returns, respectively in support of their claim, the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1800/- 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, Sri Brij Mohn Singh, 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 ‘10’ 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 deposed in her evidence that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 11.8.99 and he was aged about 42 years as on the date of the accident. P.W.2, who accompanied the deceased to Ramannapet at the relevant point of time is the eye witness to the incident. In his evidence, he deposed that on the date of the accident when they were returning in the lorry AP D 5196 and when it reached the outskirts of Chityal, another lorry belonging to the 1st respondent came 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 accident that occurred on 11.8.99. 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 having a cloth shop at Nakrekal and was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month by doing cloth business. They also filed Ex.A9, certificate issued by the Labour Department and Ex.A10, income tax returns to prove the same. However, the Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the appellants did not file any previous income tax returns nor any other documentary evidence, which would disclose the income the deceased. Though there is no evidence to show that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month, I feel it appropriate to take the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3500/- and Rs.42,000/- annually. However, in the instant case, since the number of dependant family members of the deceased are six, 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. Accordingly, after deducting an amount of Rs. 10,500/- towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family is assessed at Rs. 31,500/- 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.4,41,000/- (Rs.31,500 x 14). In addition to this, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages instead of Rs.15,000/- and the 1st appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium as awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,61,000/- instead of Rs. 1,69,000/- 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: 22nd July, 2010 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129