THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.NO.698 OF 2003 5TH August, 2010. BETWEEN: YALAKACHARLA SUBBALAKSHUMMA .. APPELLANT AND SHAIK DASTAGIRI AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.NO.698 OF 2003 O R D E R: This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award in M.V.O.P.No.729 of 2000, dated 22- 11-2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah. The claimant is the wife of one Y.Ramireeddy (deceased) who died in the road accident occurred on 9-6-2000. According to the claimant, the deceased went to the field for collecting green grass and while she was returning with the grass a lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 V 1144 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Kodur side and hit the deceased, as a result the deceased was seriously injured and died on the spot. The deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the claimant, filed O.P. and sought for compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained exparte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed counter and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It was also stated in the counter that the deceased was only a cooli and earning Rs.20/- per day. On the aforesaid pleadings the Tribunal formulated the following issues: i) Whether the death of the deceased by name Y.Rami Reddy occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 V 1144 belonging to the 1st respondent? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and further examined P.Laxmi Narasareddy and Bala Nagaiah as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the question of compensation and liability, the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.20/- per day and applying the multiplier 15 awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Not satisfied by the quantum of compensation this appeal is filed. Since the appeal is at the instance of the claimant for compensation the facts in detail of the incident need not be gone into in this appeal. The only point for consideration is – whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation in this appeal and if so to what amount? The Tribunal estimated the income at Rs.20/- per day. It may be mentioned that it is the specific case of the claimant that the deceased was doing agriculture. P.W.1, being the wife deposed to the said fact. In the cross- examination, she stated that the deceased was carrying green grass bundle on his head. She denied the suggestion that her husband was earning only Rs.20/- per day and she herself used to earn Rs.30/- per day. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the deceased was coming on the left side of the road along with green grass bundle when the accident occurred. In the court below no documentary evidence was produced to support the income of the deceased. However, as the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is reasonable to infer that he was working as a cooli and would earn atleast Rs.50/- per day. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company itself in its counter affidavit as well as in the suggestion made to P.W.1 in the cross-examination stated that her husband was earning Rs.20/- per day, would support the inference that the income would be atleast Rs.50/-. Even as per Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the case of a non-earning member the income should be computed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. It is, therefore, to be held that the income of the deceased should be computed at Rs.18,000/- per annum @ Rs.50/- per day. Deducting 1/3rd from out of the said amount the pecuniary loss would be Rs.12,000/- per annum (1500 x 12 = 18,000 – 1/3rd i.e. Rs.6,000/- = Rs.12,000/-). There is no dispute that the deceased was aged 45 years. Therefore, multiplier 14 should be applied. Calculating on the said basis the total pecuniary loss would be Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 14). It is, therefore, to be held that the claimant is entitled for the difference of Rs.68,000/- as enhancement in this appeal (Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.1,00,000 = Rs.68,000). In addition to the same the claimant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all Rs.12,000/-. Thus, the claimant is held to be entitled for enhancement of Rs.80,000/-. However, as the claimant restricted the claim only for Rs.1,75,000/-, the award of compensation is restricted to only Rs.1,75,000/- only. In other words, the claimant is held entitled for Rs.75,000/- as enhancement in this appeal which shall carry interest @ 6 % from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The award in the M.V.O.P.No.729 of 2000 dated 22-11-2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 5th August 2010. ( NOUSHAD ALI, J ) TNB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.NO.698 OF 2003 5TH August, 2010.