HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2900 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and granting a portion of compensation to respondent Nos.3 and 4, claimants, parents of the deceased, filed this appeal against the judgment in O.P. No.1255 of 1997 dated 16-05-1997 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Appellants are parents of the deceased, respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry, respondent No.2 – the New India Assurance Company Limited is insurer of respondent No.1’s lorry, respondent No.3 is alleged to be wife of the deceased and respondent No.4 is son of the deceased through respondent No.4. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. Claimants’ case is that on 21-11-1997 at 7-15 AM, while the deceased was going on a scooter along with a pillion rider, at Bandlaguda, near Mahabubnagar cross roads in the limits of Chandrayangutta Police Station, lorry bearing No.AP-9T-1648, belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter of the deceased and on account of that deceased sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital died on 24-11-1997 at 8-05 PM. According to the claimants, deceased was their youngest son and he was unmarried. He was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, filed his counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of respondent No.1’s lorry, filed its counter contending that claimants required to prove their case. 7. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 got themselves impleaded in the O.P. stating that respondent No.3 is wife of the deceased and respondent No.4 is son of respondent No.3 through the deceased. 8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues and additional issue were framed by the Tribunal for trial:- ISSUES: “1. Whether A. Raju died in an accident occurred on 21.11.97 at about 7.15 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP-9T-1648? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much ? 3. To what relief ?” ADDITIONAL ISSUE: “Whether the 3rd and 4th respondents are entitled to compensation and if so for how much amount ?” 9. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, no oral evidence was adduced, but a photostat copy and a copy of the insurance policy were marked as Exs.B-12 and B-13 respectively. 10. Based on the material on record, Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- apportioning the compensation between the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, and respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are wife and son of the deceased, as under: Claimant No.1 (Father of the deceased) - Rs.20,000/- Claimant No.2 (Mother of the deceased) - Rs.30,000/- Respondent No.3 (Wife of the deceased) - Rs.79,500/- Respondent No.4 (Son of the deceased) - Rs.50,000/- 11. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimants, appellants, is that compensation is inadequate and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not at all wife and son of the deceased, as such, Tribunal erred in apportioning the compensation in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 12. Now the questions that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded is inadequate ? 2. Whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 are wife and son of the deceased ? QUESTION No.1: 13. According to the claimants, at the time of accident on 21-11-1997, deceased was aged about 22 years and he was doing business in hair and earning Rs.4,000/- a month. While answering issue No.2, Tribunal holding that multiplier 17 is applicable arrived at a conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per annum and out of that deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and taking Rs.10,000/- per annum as his contribution towards his family, awarded compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- apportioning the same as stated supra. 14. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum is on lower side. At the time of accident, deceased was going on a scooter. Though there is no evidence to show that deceased was owning that scooter, it would show that at least he was earning not too small amounts. Even his income is put at Rs.100/- a day, it comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and if it is put at Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- a day, it comes to Rs.2,000/- per month. Accordingly, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2,000/- per month, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.24,000/- per annum and out of that if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, as the number of dependants are four, the net contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. At this rate, even without adding anything towards enhancement of future earnings and compensation under other heads, claimants would be entitled to more than Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 17 = Rs.3,06,000/-) towards loss of dependency alone. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by them. Accordingly, this question is answered QUESTION No.2: 15. Coming to the question of entitlement of respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.3 is examined and filed marriage photographs etc., showing that she married the deceased and that the marriage was without participation of the parents of the deceased. Deceased himself came and asked her parents for giving her in marriage and the marriage was performed. Though it looks somewhat odd, it cannot be disbelieved. From the photograph of the deceased in his S.S.C. certificate, which is marked as Ex.A-5, and marriage photographs of the deceased, marked as Exs.B-1 to B-6, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the person found in them is one and the same. There is no close proximity in the faces found in Ex.A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-6 though there are similarities. Respondent No.3 claims that respondent No.4 is the child born to her through the deceased. In case, any DNA test was conducted, perhaps that could have proved as to whether respondent No.4 was born to the deceased. As this is only a motor vehicles accidents O.P. not involving any substantial sum, perhaps steps have not been taken for conducting DNA test. However, on the basis of the evidence of PW.3 and as there is very remote possibility of making a false claim that deceased was her husband, I am inclined to accept that respondent No.3 is wife of the deceased and respondent No.4 is their child, and therefore, they are also entitled to the compensation. Accordingly, this question is answered. 16. Accordingly, it is ordered that claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as claimed instead of Rs.1,79,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 9% per annum, as the claimants are entitled for more compensation and they claimed less compensation, which alone is granted, from the date of petition till realization. The entire enhanced compensation shall be payable to the claimants alone i.e., parents of the deceased, as respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not questioned the quantum of compensation. 17. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 14, 2010. PV