THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2010 Dated:- 21st March, 2011 Between:- R.Srinivas and another …Petitioners AND The Indian Railways and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2010 ORDER:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2007 passed in O.P.No.2514 of 2004 by the XXII Additional Chief Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first claimant – R.Srinivas is the husband and the second claimant – R.Ganesh is the minor son aged about 5 years of the deceased Kalpana. On 04.08.2004, at about 08:45 A.M., while the deceased was sitting in front of Himmatnagar Post Office, Secunderabad, for the purpose of selling foot wear, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 36 U 5020, coming from Keys High School side and proceeding towards Elephanta bridge, being driven by its driver – Mohd. Iqbal in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit an electrical pole in front of Himmatnagar Post Office and then hit the deceased who sustained bleeding injuries. The deceased was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad but however, she succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 10:00 A.M. while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and she was selling footwear and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month and contributing the same to her family. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the respondents are the owners of the lorry and are liable to pay compensation, the claimants instituted the above referred O.P. before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 filed common counter and denied the averments made by the claimants and averred that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The respondents have also denied the relationship between the claimants and the deceased. 3. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined besides marking Exs.A.1 to A.13. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents, except examining R.W.1. Exs.X.1 to X.5 were marked through Court. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues for adjudication and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the petition was filed under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the claimants need not prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that it is sufficient if they prove that the vehicle is involved in the accident and that the evidence on record shows that the vehicle of the respondents is involved in the accident and that the respondents failed to prove that the accident occurred due to mechanical defects in the vehicle and that the claimants have examined P.W.2 whose evidence is corroborating with the documentary evidence adduced by the claimants which goes to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and that respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, the Tribunal, further holding that the deceased was a chappal vendor and that there is no acceptable evidence regarding the income of the deceased and that though she may be a housewife, but she was devoting most of her time for her business of selling the chappals by sitting on the pavement and, therefore, her services to the family cannot be equated with that of a housewife, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and partly allowed the O.P. awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- out of the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the claimants. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court as appellants. 5. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the earnings of the deceased on lower side and that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the dicta of the Apex Court that even a housewife’s income has to be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgments in case between Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others[1], National Insurance Company Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. R.Govinda Raju and others[2] a n d Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others[3]. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the award of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and that there is no need to disturb the same. 7. The Apex Court, in Lata Wadhwa’s case (1 supra) observed as follows:- “Even in the absence of data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum.” In the same case, it was further observed as follows:- “This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59 and as such who were active in life.” 8. This Court also, in National Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (2 supra), followed the same principle laid down by the Apex Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case (1 supra). 9. The facts of Arun Kumar Agrawal’s case (3 supra), are that the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.60,000/- per annum) and after deducting 1/3rd i.e., Rs.20,000/- towards personal expenditure and adopting the multiplier of 15, estimated the total loss of dependency at Rs.6,00,000/-. However, instead of awarding Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.2,50,000/-. The matter was carried to the High Court which estimated the services of the deceased at Rs.1,250/- per month and upheld the award of the Tribunal. When the matter was carried to the Apex Court, the Apex Court observed as follows:- “The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for reducing the amount are wholly untenable and approach of the High Court is erroneous and unjustified and the amount is enhanced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-.” 10. Thus, the above referred decisions clearly shows that the services of a housewife should be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was selling footwear by sitting by the side of the road and earning, besides being a housewife and, therefore, her income should be assessed more than the value of the domestic services performed by a non-earning housewife. 11. In the circumstances, I deem it just and reasonable to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month which would come to Rs.43,200/- (Rs.3,600/- x 12) per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.28,800/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in case between Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[4], the appropriate multiplier applicable to the instant case is 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,60,800/- (Rs.28,800/- X 16) under the head of loss of dependency along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to disturb the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants towards other heads viz., Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,70,300/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy thousand and three hundred only). 13. Out of the total compensation of Rs.4,70,300/-, both the claimants shall be entitled for equal share, i.e., Rs.2,35,150/- each. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw his share along with the interest accrued thereon. As the second claimant – R.Ganesh is a minor, his full share shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any national bank on his name and he shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount upon his attaining the age of majority. However, the first claimant is permitted to withdraw periodical interest on such fixed deposit to meet the educational expenses of his minor son. 14. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and, accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 21st March, 2011 Bvv [1] 2001 ACJ 1735 [2] 2007 (2) ALT 503 [3] 2010 ACJ 2161 [4] AIR 2009 SC 3104