THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1910 of 2008 JUDGMENT The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 22.08.2007, passed in O.P.No.1422 of 2005 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. On 06.05.2005, while the husband of the first claimant, by name Ramesh, was proceeding on his motorcycle and at about 10-00 AM when he reached near Gunti Jangaiah Colony, L.B.Nagar, a lorry bearing No.AP 29T 5117, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed his motorcycle, due to which, he sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment, he died on 10.05.2005. The claimants being wife, children, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased filed O.P.No.1422 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the lorry respectively. The second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.6,93,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants-claimants filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Court below had wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased on lower side and granted less compensation. He further contended that the Court below ought to have awarded compensation towards medical bills spent by the claimants in the hospital before the death of the deceased. 5. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased Ramesh, stated in her evidence that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month as Commission Agent, but she did not file any document to prove the same. She filed Ex.A8 and A9- Income Tax Returns pertaining to the years 2003 and 2004. Since the accident occurred in 2005, it would be appropriate to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month and annually at Rs.72,000/-. Since the number of dependant family members is 7, 1/5th should be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby, it comes to Rs.57,600/-. The deceased was aged 43 years as per Ex.A3-postmortem report. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 43 years is ‘14’, and thereby, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.57,600X14=8,06,400/- In addition to it, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate is also awarded to the claimants. In total, a sum of Rs.8,26,400/- is awarded to the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,93,000/- to Rs.8,26,400/-. The order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 6. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:10.03.2011 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121