THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3284 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 14.11.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.1232 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased M.Sambaiah in a motor accident. According to the claim of the petitioners on 30.07.2001 when the deceased was traveling in the tractor-trailor, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and died. The deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer. The 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd petitioner is daughter and 3rd respondent is mother of the deceased. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement putting the petitioners to prove rashness and negligence and also the dependency and quantum of compensation, violation of conditions of the policy and consequently the 2nd respondent pleaded no liability. The 3rd respondent filed a counter contending that the 2nd petitioner is not the daughter of the deceased and not entitled for any compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- and did not accept that the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the deceased and consequently rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the 2nd petitioner is entitled for the compensation? POINTS: So far as the nature of the incident and the liability of the insurance company is concerned, there is no dispute and no appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the income is claimed at Rs.3,000/- without any basis, the lower Tribunal has fixed at Rs.1,500/-, which is not proper. Evidently, there is no proof of his earning and the deceased was only a labourer. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact and as the incident has happened in the year 2001, the income of the labourer can be fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs.18,000/- and when one-third is deducted, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.12,000/-. As the deceased was said to be aged about 35 years, the multiplier ‘16’ has been rightly applied by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 16). The lower Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, which appear to be reasonable. The total compensation for which the petitioners are entitled is Rs.1,99,000/- rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, as rightly found by the lower Tribunal, it was not initially claimed that the 2nd petitioner is the adopted daughter and she is not the natural daughter of the deceased and there is no proof of adoption and consequently the 2nd petitioner cannot claim any compensation. Hence, the claim of 2nd petitioner is rejected. Therefore, the award of the lower Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and the 1st petitioner being the wife is entitled to the total compensation and the interest rate shall be at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3284 of 2011 DATE: 02-12-2011 MR