THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.457 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants against the award, dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, in O.P.No.446/98. 2. The deceased, who is a 24 years old unmarried person, died in an accident caused by APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3806 on 03.07.1994, when he was traveling as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing No.AP 37 H 1576, when the said bus dashed the scooter at Kunchimamba temple at Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. According to the petitioners, the parents of the deceased, the deceased was working as a teacher at Sai Samithi Public School, Visakhapatnam. They claimed compensation at Rs.2,20,000/-. The third respondent – A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter contending that the accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the scooter on which the deceased was a pillion rider. Thus, the scooter driver and its insurer are necessary parties to the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle, as alleged in the O.P.? 2. Whether R-1, R-2 and R-3 or any of them are liable to pay any compensation, interest and costs to the petitioner, and if so to what amounts? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 3. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- a month and calculated the dependency at Rs.500/- a month. After applying the multiplier of 10.45 on the basis of the average age of the parents of the deceased, the petitioners herein, granted compensation of Rs.62,700/- towards loss of dependency and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, which comes to total compensation of Rs.77,700/-. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants filed the present appeal. 5. There is no dispute at all about the accident. Though the respondent – A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the scooter, on which the deceased was a pillion rider, no evidence was adduced and not even the driver of the bus was examined to prove that the accident has taken place in a different manner than spoken by the petitioners’ witnesses, according to whom, the accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus. 6. Thus, the only question that remains to be decided is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court below is appropriate? 7. There is no dispute about the age of the deceased, that is being about 24 years, though it is not much relevant as he was unmarried. The age of the petitioners is relevant, which is fixed around 45 years by the learned trial Judge, that also cannot be much disputed though there is no authentic evidence on behalf of the petitioners with regard to their ages. Thus, the multiplier of 10.45 fixed by the Court below can be accepted. The Court below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- a month and fixed the dependency at Rs.500/- a month. On this aspect as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the assessment of the Court below is highly conservative. No doubt, there was absolutely no material on record to show that the deceased was working as a teacher as claimed by the claimants. Still putting his income at Rs.40/- a day for 25 days and then fixing the dependency at Rs.500/- a month is highly arbitrary. While fixing the income, the enhancement of the future earning capacity ought to have been taken into consideration. Even if the income is taken as Rs.40/- a day, it should have been taken for entire month and at least 1/4th ought to have been added towards enhancement of future earning capacity, in which event, the daily income could have been at Rs.50/- a day, which comes to Rs.1500/- a month. Even if 1/3rd is deducted out of that amount towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, Rs.1,000/- per month could have been easily taken as contribution to the family, which could have come to Rs.12,000/- per annum. If multiplier 10.45 is applied, the compensation towards loss of dependency could have been easily at Rs.1,32,000/- for which another amount of Rs.15,000/- can be added towards non-pecuniary damages and the total contribution that could be awarded is Rs.1,47,000/-. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,47,000/-.(Rupees one lakh and forty seven thousands only). 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,47,000/- from Rs.77,700/- awarded by the Court below. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation amount shall be at 6% per annum from the date of petition, which is of the year 1998. The enhanced compensation including interest shall be kept in fixed deposit and paid to the petitioners in equal proportion and the same shall be paid to them in two instalments. First instalment after one year from the date of deposit and the second instalment two years thereafter (after first payment). No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th June 2010, Rns