THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1043 of 2005 BETWEEN v. Govindamma and others v. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1043 of 2005 Oral Judgment: 1) The claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in OP NO.1312 of 2002 in its order dated 31-12-2004 for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-10-2001. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 21-10-2001, the deceased Satyanarayana and one Tirupathi Rao were proceeding on a motor bike and when they reached Katenepally, one offending lorry bearing No.AP-15U-750 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner in the same direction and hit the motor bike, as a result of which, the deceased received serious injuries and fractures to head, legs spinal cord and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar, thereafter to CDR Hospital, Hyderabad. The deceased was treated as in-patient for a period of 4 months in the said hospital. Thereafter, he succumbed to the injuries in the month of February, 2002. The deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of the accident and was doing Goldsmith work and also was a “Vastu Pandit” and used to earn a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased. 3) Before the Tribunal 1strespondent remained ex-parte. The 2rd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition. 6) On the basis of the rival claims, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 were got marked. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents, however, Ex.B.1 insurance policy was marked. 7) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the death of the deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.4,02,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 8) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the record. 9) In the instant case, the Tribunal considering the evidence including of eye witness who is P.W.2 to the incident and pillion rider of the bike, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondents therein, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the same needs no interference by this Court. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing Goldsmith work and they also produced Ex.A.16 the licence issued in favour of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased was doing Gold smith work an amount of Rs.3500/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased, out of which ¼th is deducted towards his personal expenses, as deceased was having four dependents, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.31,500/- per annum and by applying the multiplier 11 for the age of 55 years, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPOR CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), the total loss of contribution comes to Rs.3,46,500/-. Added to that an amount of Rs.91,649/- granted towards medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, and further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium is granted. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,66,000/-. 10)Subject to above enhancement of the compensation, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for the interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced amount. No costs. GM, J 16-12-2010/kk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1043 of 2005 16-12-2010