IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1439 OF 2002 BETWEEN Smt. Rukmini and others. …APPELLANTS AND Jadav Bajran and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellants: Mr. K. Raji Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Venkat Rao The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangareddy in O.P.No.62 of 1997 by its order dated 14.06.2001. 2. It is a case of death of the husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2 and 3. The deceased is said to be working as a cleaner on the lorry bearing No. ADT 1515. On the date of the accident i.e. 15.04.1996, while the deceased was traveling in the said lorry on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, because of sudden brakes applied to the lorry, he fell down and suffered injuries and died. Earlier to the present OP the claimants had filed O.P.No.61 of 1997 to the extent of no fault liability for Rs.50,000/-, which was allowed. The present OP is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The tribunal below on issue No.1 found that the said offending lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and consequently all the respondents in the OP were held jointly and severally liable. On issue No.5 the tribunal found that there is no evidence on monthly earnings of the deceased and therefore, notionally his earnings were taken at Rs.900/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd his annual dependency was arrived at Rs.7,200/-. The age of the deceased though claimed to be 28 years by the claimants, Ex.A3 – Inquest Report and Ex.A4 – Postmortem Report together indicate that the deceased was aged about 30 years. The tribunal, therefore, accepted that his age was 30 years and applied multiplier ‘15’ and granted compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- to which non- pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium was added aggregating to Rs.1,28,000/-. Out of the said amount, the amount paid under no fault liability was deducted and interest at 9% was awarded. The present appeal by the claimants is seeking enhancement of compensation to the extent of disallowed claim. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the income of the deceased is taken on a much lower side by the tribunal, as even in those days the minimum earning of a cleaner would not be less than Rs.100/- per day. He also contends that the multiplier applied is not proportionate to the age of the deceased and even applying the second schedule to the Act the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’ ought to be applied. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no evidence with regard to the earnings or salary of the deceased nor there is any evidence with respect to the age of the deceased. He, therefore, submits that the award under appeal does not warrant any interference. 7. No doubt, there is no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and therefore, the tribunal has taken notional income and after deducting 1/3rd has fixed his annual contribution to Rs.7,200/- per year. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, though there is no document produced by the claimants, the postmortem report and the inquest report referred to above, show that his age was about 30 years. Even if we go by the second schedule to the Act the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 25 to 30 would be ‘18’. Therefore, accepting the annual contribution as determined by the tribunal but applying the correct multiplier ‘18’ thereto the compensation payable would arrive at Rs.1,29,600/-. The conventional amount of Rs.20,000/-, as granted by the tribunal, therefore, does not deserve to be disturbed and as such, the award of the tribunal below shall appropriately stand modified and instead of Rs.1,28,000/- aggregate granted by the tribunal below, the aggregate amount decreed shall be Rs.1,49,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of claim till realization. The amount awarded to the claimant under no fault liability shall be deducted from the amount granted herein. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 2, 2009 DSK