HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.77 of 2008 Date: 08-6-2011 Between Katta Saidamma and 3 others … Appellants/Claimants and G.Jayalaxmi and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.77 of 2008 Judgment: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-2007 passed in O.P.No.154 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 3. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the aforesaid O.P. For brevity and better understanding, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal below. 4. The petitioners filed the O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Katta Venkanna. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased Venkanna. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 to A-6 granted compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- under all heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly urged that assessment of the Tribunal below regarding the income of the deceased is erroneous in spite of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A-2 inquest report that the deceased was a mason and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month and there are reasons for enhancement of compensation. 6. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the claimants are entitled for the enhancement of compensation ? 7 . Point:- A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A-2 inquest report, it is clearly noted that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was a mason by profession. The accident was occurred in the year 2006. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was hale and healthy on the date of accident. Therefore, it can safely be held that a male person with good health that too at the age of 35 years can easily earn not less than Rs.100/- per day, even assuming that the deceased was not a mason. Further, even a regular cooli will get Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, as per the evidence of P.W.1 it can safely be held that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below that the earning capacity of the deceased was Rs.1,500/- per month is not sustainable in view of the evidence on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court that the dependants are four in number and therefore, one-fourth has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and placed reliance on the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. DTC[1], wherein it was held that one-fourth has to be deducted from out of the earnings of the deceased if the dependants of the deceased are more than four in number. Accordingly, one-fourth has to be deducted from out of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses. If one-fourth of the same is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the amount contributed towards his family comes to Rs.2,250/- per month and the annual contribution comes to Rs.27,000/- (Rs.2,250/- x 12). 9. As noted already, the age of the deceased was 35 years as per the post-mortem report. The proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra) to the age of a deceased of 35 years is ‘16’. If the annual contribution of the deceased is multiplied with ‘16’ it comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 16). Accordingly, the said amount is awarded. The Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral and transport charges. In my view, the finding of the Tribunal below on that score is justified. Thus, in all the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and sixty five thousand only). The Tribunal below granted interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. But, while applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the interest to be awarded on the enhanced amount i.e., Rs.2,28,000/- (Rs.4,65,000/- - Rs.2,37,000/-) is at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous petition is allowed in part. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 08th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.77 of 2008 08th June, 2011. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121