IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.511 of 2003 Between: Jakkidi Bixam Reddy and others ..... APPELLANTS AND Jatti Venkateswar Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 24-06-2002 made in O.P.No.764 of 1999 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Prl. District Judge), Nalgonda. 2. The appellants herein are the claimants before the claims Tribunal and the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first claimant is the father, second claimant is the mother and the third claimant is the sister of the deceased. The deceased Jakkadi Anji Reddi was driving the lorry bearing No.AP- 37U-4588 from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam. When the lorry reached the outskirts of Aitipamula village the driver of the lorry got down from the lorry for checking the load and in the meanwhile one bus hired with APSRTC bearing No.AP-16W-5678 belonging to the first respondent, insuring with the second respondent came from the backside of the said driver of the lorry. The driver of the bus drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the said lorry driver. As a result of which he died instantaneously. The matter was reported to the Police, Kattangur, who registered a case in Crime No.112 of 1999 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claimants filed a claim petition claiming the total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent remained ex parte. Second respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, age, income and occupation of the deceased as averred by the claimants in their claim petition have been denied. 5. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues on behalf of the claimants. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents no one is examined but copy of policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 6. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month and deducted Rs.500/- towards his personal expenses and by taking the age of the mother of the deceased as ‘55’ applied multiplier ‘4’ and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- in all with 9% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents clearly stated that the minimum wage of the driver during the year 1999 was Rs.1250/- and variable dearness allowance was Rs.1485/- and with the above circumstances the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. 8. The only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? 9. POINT: Admittedly, the deceased was a driver and he was a bachelor and taking minimum wage as Rs.1250/- + V.D.A. of Rs.1485/-, the total income of the deceased should be calculated at Rs.2,700/- per month and taking the age of the mother of the deceased as 55 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘9’. Admittedly, 50% has to be deducted since the deceased is a bachelor. Thus, the total compensation is 2700 x 12 x ½ x 9 = 1,45,800/-. 10. The claimants are also entitled for non pecinuiary damage of Rs.12,000/- from the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and thus, total compensation comes to Rs.1,57,800/-. However, as far as the enhancement amount is concerned they are entitled to 6% interest per annum. 11. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J June 24, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.511 of 2003 June 24, 2011 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121