IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2302 of 2002 Between: Boilnipalli Sharada ..... APPELLANT AND Pallerla Sarangapani and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2302 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Appellant is the claimant who filed O.P.616/1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, against which the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- along with interest thereon by order dated 26.03.1997. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, contending that the Tribunal below erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month instead of Rs.2,000/- per month. It is also contended that the Tribunal below has also erred in applying the multiplier of 13 instead of 16 as the deceased was aged about 30 years. It is further contended that the Tribunal below erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- only towards loss of consortium and loss of estate instead of granting Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. Thus, this appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,19,000/- to Rs.2 lakhs. 3. The claimant is the wife of the deceased Boinipalli Chokkrao who died in a motor accident occurred on 27.03.1993 at about 9 p.m. at Bavupet cross roads by reason of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.ATO.849-850 which was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent herein is the driver of the crime vehicle. 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. The 4th respondent is the mother of the deceased. 4. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below. 5. It is the case of the claimant that her deceased husband by the time of accident was working as a Clerk in a Lorry Transport Company at Warangal and getting monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. While so, on 27.03.1993 when her deceased husband was going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP0-8606 from Yelkaturthy to Hanamkonda and at about 9 pm when reached near the cross roads near Bavupet, dashed a tractor-trailer bearing No.ATO-849 and 850 which was negligently parked in the middle of the road with the load of big stones projecting backwards without glowing any parking light signals, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital. It is not in dispute that for the negligence of the driver and the owner of the tractor-trailer the accident was occurred, and the finding of the Tribunal below in this aspect has become final. 6. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the claimant that her deceased husband used to get monthly income of Rs.1,500/- per month as employee of the transport company by the time of accident. RW 1 who is the mother of the deceased also stated that the deceased used to get monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- per month, and no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the respondents. The evidence available on record goes to show that the deceased used to get Rs.1,500/- per month and he was admittedly aged about 30 years. No doubt, the Second Schedule which was only applicable for the claim petitions filed under Sec.163(a) of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be made applicable to the applications filed under Sec.166 of the Act, and still in respect of the annual income of the persons ranging from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- it can be taken into as a relevant factor. If that be so, even according to the said schedule the income of the spouse, even if spouse is non-earning, is to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per year and the relevant multiplier for 30 years is 17. If the deceased was 30 years and not exceeding 35 years the relevant multiplier is 17. If that be so, if 1/3rd of expenses towards contribution to the family is deducted the income of the deceased shall be taken into account as Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per year and multiplier is 17 and then the compensation would come to Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 17). Apart from that the claimant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of the estate, totaling Rs.7,500/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.2,11,500/-. But the Tribunal below erroneously taken into account his monthly income as Rs.1,000/- alone contrary to the evidence available on record presuming that he was attending to cooly work. Even if cooly he will derive the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation. As the claim itself is for Rs.2 lakhs the claim is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs. 7. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,19,000/- to Rs.2 lakh. It is made clear that the claimant is entitled to interest at 8% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of Rs.81,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of the enhanced compensation, the appellant-wife is entitled to Rs.60,000/- and the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.21,000/- along with interest accrued thereon. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.06.2010 Dsr