THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3036 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad in O.P.No.443/95 dated 21.07.1999. Petitioners 1 to 5 in the O.P. are the appellants. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The deceased Pentaiah was the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of petitioners 4 and 5. On 19.06.1995 at about 10.30 p.m. on account of lorry hitting the deceased at Gopal Petrol Pump, he died. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He was aged 37 years. The first respondent was the owner of the lorry and second respondent is the insurance company. Respondents 3 to 5 got them impleaded as second wife of the deceased Pentaiah and her children. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A27 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B28 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- and apportioned the same as follows: First petitioner is entitled to Rs.77,000/- and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each and petitioner No.5 is entitled to Rs.25,000/- and Respondent No.3, is entitled to Rs.33,000/- and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each. 3. Now, the contention of the appellants is that the compensation awarded is inadequate and respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled for compensation. 4. The learned trial Judge after considering the entire material on record, held that the deceased was aged 37 years and working as a Manager in Modern Engineering and Fabrication at Khatedan, Hyderabad, drawing a salary of Rs.3,150/- per month. But the first petitioner Kranthi – wife of the deceased and petitioners 4 and 5 the parents are also working. Hence, the dependency would come only to Rs.12,000/-per annum and the multiplier applied was 14.81 and granted compensation of Rs.1,77,720/- towards loss of dependency and granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and another Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses etc., Hence, the total compensation granted was Rs.2,10,000/-. 5. Now, the two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are, as to whether the compensation paid is inadequate and whether respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled for any portion of the compensation. 6. As per the first petitioner, the quantum of compensation is concerned, when the salary of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- and odd and when he was aged only 37 years, there ought to have been some addition in income towards his future earnings and in view of the number of dependants, only 1/4th ought to have been reduced out of total income towards personal expenses of the deceased in case he was alive. It is pertinent to mention here that the deceased was a law graduate too. Even if his income is taken as Rs.4,000/-per month after adding 1/4th amount towards future enhancement of the income, out of that 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenditure, the contribution to the family would come to Rs.3000/- per month, i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and if multiplier 14.81 is applied, the petitioners are definitely entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed. Thus, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 7. Coming to the second question of entitlement of respondents 3 to 5 for compensation, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners relied on a decision in CHAKALI NARASAPPA v. K. RAMANNA[1] and contended that the second wife is not entitled for compensation. But, in the same judgment it is held that the children of second wife are entitled for compensation. Thus, even assuming that the third respondent is not entitled for compensation, respondents 4 and 5 are definitely entitled for compensation. 8. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Out of the enhanced compensation, respondents 4 and 5 shall be entitled for Rs.15,000/- each in addition to the compensation already granted to them. The compensation paid to third respondent need not be disturbed as that might have been utilized for respondents 4 and 5, the minor children. There is no necessity of changing the order now to say that instead of payment to third respondent, the same shall be paid to respondents 4 and 5. Remaining enhanced compensation shall be payable to petitioners 2 and 3. The interest on the enhanced compensation shall be @ 7.5% per annum, as the accident has taken place in the year 1995 all the parties must have become majors, who are minors by then, as such, the enhanced compensation shall be entitled to be withdrawn by respective parties as and when deposited along with interest. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14th June 2010, Rns [1] 2009(5) ALT 33