THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.NO.126 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 21.09.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.3042 of 2005 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim petition filed by the appellants under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the Rules framed under the said Act read with amended Act 54 of 1994 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest at 6.5% per annum from the date of petition. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the second respondent. Perused the records. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Atiya Sultana, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.11.2005. The first claimant is the husband and claimants 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 12.11.2005 at 12.30 pm when the deceased was proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 12 U 3320 towards Chandrayanagutta from Zubera Colony, the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP 16 U 2000 drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the auto, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding head injury and died while undergoing treatment in Owaisi Hospital. Police registered a case in crime No.191 of 2005 against the driver of the DCM Van. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing painting and stitching works and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and was aged about 35 years by the date of the incident. The first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondent but Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy was marked. After consideration of the evidence available on record, the Court below found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van. The said finding has become final, as there was no appeal by the respondents. The Court below further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest at 6.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. The main contention of the appellants is that the Court below erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by stitching purses and doing painting work. Learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Court below rightly ignored the oral evidence while recording the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,[1], wherein the Apex Court held that the Tribunal, after observing that the income taken could be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month being 1/3rd of the income of the spouse and having arrived at total loss of dependency to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, however reduced the same to Rs.2,25,000/- for no valid reason and it was further reduced by the High Court without any justification, and therefore, restored the original award made by the Tribunal and held that the claimants therein are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show the income of the first claimant-husband of the deceased. The decision cited is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. The inquest report, Ex.A2 would, however, go to show that the deceased was doing some stitching work. Though the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, they adduced oral evidence of P.W.3, who is a co-worker of the deceased, who testified that the deceased was engaged in stitching the purses. It cannot, therefore, be said that the deceased was totally a non-earning member. In the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the deceased, it is considered just and reasonable to assume the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, as even a normal labourer would be earning that much. It can, therefore, be justifiably estimated that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,500/- per annum. As the deceased left behind four legal heirs, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi transport corporation and another[2]’. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.13,500/- per annum. The deceased was admittedly aged about 35 years by the time of her death and the Court below has rightly applied the multiplier ‘16’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,16,000/-. The Court below has observed that the deceased being a housewife, the domestic services rendered by the deceased to the family members cannot be brushed aside. However, the Court below has failed to grant any amount towards loss of domestic services. Apart from the first claimant-husband, the deceased has left behind three children appellants 2 to 4, who are aged about 18 years, 17 years and 12 years respectively, by the date of the incident. On account of untimely and unfortunate death of the deceased in the accident, claimants 2 to 4 are certainly deprived of the domestic help and assistance from their mother, the deceased. It is, therefore, considered just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of domestic services having regard to the age of the deceased, who was only 35 years by the date of her death. The first claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, as awarded by the Court below. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,75,500/- (Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand five hundred only) with interest at 6.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Court below from the date of petition and at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 3rd November 2011 RRB [1] 2010 ACJ 2161 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121