THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA No.2977 of 2003 Date: 1.2.2010 Between: Varagani Hymavathi and others. Appellants And Kasula Venkaiah and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA No.2977 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Kondaiah, who are the claimants in O.P No.622 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore. The appellants filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 9.11.1998 wherein the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-7-1829 was involved. Against the claim of Rs.9,26,700/-, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement? I have heard both sides. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 to 5, it is made out that the deceased Kondaiah was a Potter and he was making Idols of Lord Vinayaka and selling them. However, the learned Tribunal, in so far as the income of the deceased, did not agree with the version of the above mentioned witnesses that it was Rs.10,000/- per month by assigning the convincing reasons that no documentary evidence has been let in, which was examined by the sale tax authorities, as such no reliance can be placed on those documents, which do not even bear the signatures of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal considering the deceased as a skilled worker, fixed in his income at Rs.1500/- per month. The income fixed by the learned Tribunal is not reasonable for the purpose of computing the compensation, and this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal did not take the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in Ex.A6-Original Secondary School Certificate which is 1.6.1954, but relied upon the age mentioned in Ex.A6, which is 55 years. If the date of birth as mentioned in Ex.A6-SSC certificate is taken into consideration, the age of the deceased was about 45 years as on the date of his death. In Ex.A4-Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 48 years. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the age as mentioned in Ex.A6-SSC and that the age of the deceased can be taken as 45 years as on the date of his death, in which case, the multiplier, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], is to be taken as ‘14’. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.24,000/- if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased, it comes to Rs.16,000/-. To arrive at loss of dependency the said amount has to be capitalized with multiplier of ‘14’, which comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. This apart, the 1st appellant, who is the widow of the deceased, is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; the appellants are also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,44,000/-. The enhancement would be Rs.88,500/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. In the result, with the above enhancement in the amount of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:1.02.2010 mrb [1] 2009 ACJ 1298