IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No.284 of 2001. Date:29.01.2010 Between:- Kallu Arun Kumar Reddy and another ..Petitioners/Appellants And N.Anantha Reddy and another .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the claimants against the Award passed in O.P.No.691 of 1997 dated 20.10.2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nalgonda for enhancement of compensation. The appellants, who were the claimants, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of Kallu Narsimha Reddy. 2. The brief facts are that the deceased K.Narasimha Reddy was proceeding on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AAL 2026 on 06.03.1997. A DCM van bearing registration No.AP-10-T- 3407 coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle. The deceased received grievous injuries and while taking treatment in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, died on 08.03.1997. The appellants, therefore, claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondent No.1, who was owner of the van remained exparte. Respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of the facts. 3. The Tribunal framed the issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether the appellants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? 4. Appellant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined Deverapally Janga Reddy as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the appellants. Respondent No.2 did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. 5. P.W.2 was an eye witness to the accident. Based on the same and based on Ex.A-1-attested photo copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.33 of 1997 of Police Station, Deverkonda and Ex.A-4-attested carbon copy of the charge sheet, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal awarded Rs.92,160/- towards the contribution of the deceased to the family and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, thus awarded a total sum of Rs.97,160/-. Not satisfied with the said quantum, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company. 7. In this appeal, I need not go into the issue relating to rash and negligence as there is no appeal contesting the said issue. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and also a businessman. He was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and relied on Ex.A-6 to support the claim. Ex.A-6 is the income certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Deverkonda in which it has been stated that the deceased was having Ac.40-00cs of agricultural land at Doniyala village, out of which there is orange garden in Ac.6-00cs of land. It has also been stated that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,00,000/- on agriculture. The Tribunal did not accept Ex.A-6 on the ground that no other document was filed to show that the deceased held some land. In my opinion, Ex.A-6 should not have been discarded, as the same has emanated from an official who is concerned with the revenue records. Further, P.W.2, in his deposition, stated that he along with the deceased had gone to Kesavatanda to call coolies to work in the field of Narsimha Reddy. Even in the cross examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased took him for engaging labourers and that he denied that he was giving false evidence. I am, therefore, of the view that the deceased had agricultural lands deriving some income from the same. The question is whether on account of the death, can it be said that the claimants are deprived of the income from the lands. 9. In STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VS. JASBIR KAUR AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court held that the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source since the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as legal heirs. The Apex Court, however, observed that there is a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after the agriculture and the attendant circumstances have to be considered. Following the same, as the appellants cannot be said to have been deprived of the income from the land, but at the same time, the deceased would have contributed his own labour to derive the income from the land and based on the same, the notional income of the deceased has to be arrived at. In the instant case, Ex.A-6 disclose that crop was raised in a extent of Ac.6-00cs of land and there is no evidence that the remaining extent of land was put to any cultivation. I am of the view that the notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.1,500/- per month i.e., Rs.18,000/- per annum. 10. Although the appellants claimed that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, Exs.A-2 and A-3 which are the attested photo copies of Post Mortem report and inquest report show that the deceased was aged fifty years. I take the same as correct and confirm the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. 11. The Tribunal applied 7.68 multiplier. However, in SARLAVARMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,[2] the Apex Court has laid the formula, as per the same, that in respect of the persons aged between forty six and fifty years, ‘13’ multiplier is to be applied. The application of ‘7.68’ multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is, therefore, not accepted. 12. In the same case, the Apex Court felt that where dependants are two to three, 1/3rd of the amount is liable to be deducted out of the income of the deceased. Applying the same, I am of the view that from out of Rs.1,500/- per month notional income as noted above, Rs.500/- is liable to be deducted and the contribution of the deceased is arrived at Rs.1,000/- per month i.e., Rs.12,000/- per annum. 13. Applying the multiplier of ‘13’, the total amount of contribution comes to Rs.1,56,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same need not be interfered with. However, the Tribunal has not awarded funeral expenses. I am of the view that the appellants are entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,63,000/-. As against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.97,160/-. Therefore, the difference of amount to which the appellants are entitled is Rs.65,840/- towards enhancement. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for a sum of Rs.65,840/- over and above the grant already made by the Tribunal. I am also of the view that the appellants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The award passed in O.P.No.691 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nalgonda is modified accordingly. 14. The appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 29th January 2010 AMD [1] (2003)7 Supreme Court Cases 484 [2] 2009(6)SCC 121