HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3008 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 08.07.2005 passed in MVOP No.716 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The said MVOP was filed by the claimants/appellants herein claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of one Boya Nadipi Maddilety in the Motor Accident that occurred on 06.09.2004 involving a lorry bearing registration No.AP 21V 6756. The claimants/appellants herein are the mother and the wife of the deceased Boya Nadipi Maddilety. As against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/-, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,63,000/-Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. It has come in the evidence that the tyre of the lorry in question got burst and the driver could not control the lorry, as a result, the lorry ran over the deceased while he was taking Pushkara bath in the Krishna River in Beechupally. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 that on the fateful day when he was travelling along with the deceased in the lorry, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question by its driver. Considering this evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question by its driver, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is borne out from the record that as on date of the accident, the claimant was aged 35 years and was working as lorry cleaner and drawing monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, but since there was no positive evidence to that effect, the Tribunal took the income on an average of Rs.1,250/- per month and after adopting multiplier ‘16’, granted Rs.1,63,000/- as compensation. 5. To substantiate their claim, the petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and also examined one Boya Naganna as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. It has come in the evidence that the claimant was aged 35 years and he was working as a lorry cleaner. Though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, since there is no positive evidence to prove the same, his income can be fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month which annually comes to Rs.30,000/- (2,500 x 12). As the deceased is married, and considering the circumstances of the case 1/3rd of the annual income i.e Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and if deducted, the amount comes to Rs.20,000/- (30,000 – 10,000). Appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘16’ when applied, the amount comes to Rs.3,20,000/- (20,000 x 16). To this amount the claimants are also entitled Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, totaling to an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- and the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. 6. In the result, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J February 03, 2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3008 of 2005 February 03, 2011 SP/KK [1] 2009 (6) scale 129