HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.476 of 2003 Date: 11.11.2010 Between: Banda Rajavva and others ..... Appellants AND Nandamuri Prakash Rao and others .....Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.476 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioners in O.P.No.211 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- District Judge, Adilabad, assailing the impugned order dated 15.05.2001 passed by the said Court awarding total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum, filed this appeal seeking enhancement. 2. The facts in brief are that on 14.12.1995 while the deceased was waiting for a bus along with two quintals of fish, a lorry bearing No. AP- 36-T-5929 came from Karimnagar side and on seeing him the lorry stopped there and the deceased got into the lorry along with two quintals of fish and paid the fare for himself as well as the fish to go to Nirmal. When the lorry reached near Lingapur bridge, the driver drove the lorry at high speed and lost control over it, as a result thereof, the lorry turned turtle and that the deceased fell down and suffered serious injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Karimnagar. Indanpalli Police registered a case in Crime No.162 of 1995 against the lorry driver under Sections 337, 279 of IPC and after the death of the deceased the provision of law was altered to Section 304-A IPC. 3. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte and respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the petition averments and alleging that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle at the time of the accident and that he was not the owner of the goods. It also denied the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased as well as the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 4. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal had framed relevant issues for trial as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, the entitlement of the claimants to claim compensation and the liability of the respondents to pay the same. 5. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining PW.2, who is an eye witness to the accident and got marked Exs.A1-F.I.R, A2-Inquest Panchanama Report, A3-Post Mortem Report, A4-Final Report and A5-M.V.I Report in support of her case, whereas no witnesses were examined and no document was marked on behalf of the respondents except marking Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy by consent. 6. The lower Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A1-F.I.R and Ex.A5 M.V.I. report, which is to the effect that there was no defect in the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, answered the first issue positively as to the rash and negligent driving attributing the same to respondent No.1- lorry driver, and having regard to Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B1-Policy being in force by the time of the accident, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation and that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the claimants. That the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW.1-the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, PW.2, an eye witness to the accident also having regard to Ex.A2-Inquest Panchanama and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum as has already been stated in Para No.1 supra. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that though they claimed Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident, the lower Tribunal erroneously awarded Rs.2,00,000/- only by not properly appreciating the evidence and other material on record. Though PW.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, categorically stated that her husband during his life time was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal erroneously fixed his earnings at Rs.50/- per day i.e., Rs.1500/- per month and erroneously deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal expenses. In-spite of the fact that the claimants/dependants being four in number, the Tribunal erred in not deducting 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Apart from that the Tribunal also erred in awarding less compensation towards loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses as well as awarding a lesser interest at 6% per annum, 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day and if the same is taken into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,250/- and per annum it comes to Rs.27,000/-. If 1/4th of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency per annum would come to Rs.20,250/-, and as such the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,44,250/-( Rs.20,250/- x 17). Since the appellants restricted their claim to Rs.3,00,000/-only, they are held to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only. 9. In the result, the Appeal is allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced amount of compensation is concerned. No order as to costs. ____________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date: 11.11.2010 Ivd