THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.328 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 08-10-2007, in M.V.O.P.No.846 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Warangal, wherein the said claim application filed by the petitioners herein for compensation, was allowed awarding Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-R.Sidda Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.05.2005. 1st claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. Respondents filed counter opposing the application. After full fledged enquiry, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.,e. tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 36V 5139/5140 by its driver. The Tribunal estimated the compensation payable as Rs.3,85,000/- but confined the same to Rs.3,00,000/- which is claimed by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, claimants preferred the present appeal. They also filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.558 of 2008 seeking to amend the claim application by enhancing the claim amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. The said application, which was earlier directed to be posted along with the appeal is allowed today. 4. The deceased was aged 39 years by the time of the death. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’ as per the recent decision of the apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. The deceased was stated to be an agriculturist, personally cultivating Ac.8.50 cents of land. The Tribunal estimated the loss of income by way of supervisory charges in a sum of Rs.3000/- and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.24,000/-. The question of deducting any amount towards personal expenses from the estimated supervisory charges may not arise as the said amount is not an income earned by the deceased but is only refractive of the loss occasioned to the cultivation on account of the absence of the personal supervision of the agricultural operations by the deceased. When the entire amount of Rs.3000/- per month is taken into consideration, it comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier ‘16’ as per the II Schedule, as was done by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,76,000/-. If the multiplier ‘15’ as per Sarala Verma’s case (1st cited supra) is applied, it comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. Even if any deduction is to be made towards the personal expenses, as the deceased left behind four surviving family members, deduction of 25% has to be made as per Sarala Verma’s case. When it is so deducted at 25%, it exceeds Rs.4,00,000/-. Thus, viewed from any angle, whether any deduction is made towards personal expenses or not the claimants should be entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The insurer has not filed any appeal and therefore, the amount of Rs.3000/- per month taken by the Tribunal towards the supervisory charges has become final. Under those circumstances, the claimants are held entitled for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- with interest on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal @ 7.5% from the date of the petition and @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the appeal. Claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee payable on the claim application. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th August, 2011 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298