THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3784 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioners- claimants against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.893 of 2000, dated 19.06.2001. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The deceased Mohammed Osman was the husband of the first petitioner and father of second petitioner and son of third petitioner, who was said to be a wholesale businessman in vegetables. He died on 06.04.2000 in an accident that occurred near Raghavendra Rice Mills, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, on account of a bus bearing No.AP 9Z5334 dashing him. He was said to be aged 45 years earning Rs.4,500/- per month. A case in Cr.No.26 of 2000 was registered about the accident. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. Respondents- RTC filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondents corporation? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined. On the basis of the material on record, the court below assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month, applying multiplier 10.45 granted total compensation of Rs.1,87,200/-, as against the claim of Rs.3.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancing the compensation? 7. There is no dispute about the accident, the death of the deceased and the petitioners being entitled for compensation. The only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the deceased was a wholesale vegetable vendor, earning Rs.4,500/- per month and the court below erroneously taken his income as Rs.2,000/- per month. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel, as there is no authentic evidence, i.e. licence to do the business or any bank account showing the same. He has to be treated as ordinary labour earning Rs.50/- to Rs.60/- a day which must have been the wages in the year 2000 when the accident has taken place. Thus, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month cannot be said to be erroneous. If his income is taken as Rs.2000/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd, it comes to Rs.1334/- per month and Rs.16,008/- per annum. The Court below has applied multiplier 10.45. But as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] appropriate multiplier of a person aged 45 years would be ‘14’. As such, multiplier ‘14’ to be applied in this case, in which event, the compensation towards pecuniary loss comes to Rs.2,24,112/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.2,25,000/- and another amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under other heads. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,87,200/- to Rs.2,45,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 7.5% per annum. The apportionment and withdrawal shall be as ordered by the court below. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 19.11.2010 Rns [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104