THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.4022 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioners- claimants not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy in O.P.No.1172 of 2000 dated 25.05.2004. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Kacharam Anjaiah, is that on 17.06.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased was proceeding on his cycle from Shapur towards shop at Shadnagar and when he reached skin factory, one D.C.M.Van bearing No. AP 11 U 6883 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, on account of which, he received multiple injuries and was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he died on the next day. A case in Cr.No.170 of 2000 was registered at P.S.Shadnagar, under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was working as milk vendor and earning Rs.4000/- per month. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs. 4. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether the accident is occurred on account of rash and negligence on the part of driver of the Crime Vehicle D.C.M.Van bearing Regd.No.A.P.11 U 6883? 2. That the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1, the second petitioner and P.W.2, the eye witness to the accident were examined and Ex.A1 certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2 the copy of Inquest report, Ex.A3 copy of Postmortem examination report and Ex.A4 Copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below fixing the age of the deceased as 55 years, applying the multiplier 4.27, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,480/-. Questioning the above quantum, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the court below is inadequate? 8. There appears to be no dispute about the deceased being aged about 55 years and consequently the multiplier applied cannot be disputed. The court below took the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-, whereas the claim is of Rs.4000/-. There was no authentic evidence with regard to his income. Naturally for claiming higher compensation higher income would be mentioned in the petition. As such, there was nothing unreasonable in putting the income at Rs.3000/- by the court below. But, out of the amount of Rs.3000/-, 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, which perhaps is not in order. In view of the latest legal position, as number of dependants are more than ‘4’, towards personal expenditure 1/4th ought to be deducted, but not 1/3rd. Thus, the court below ought to have deduct 1/4th, but not 1/3rd. In which event, the contribution comes to Rs.2250/- per month and it comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum and if multiplier 4.27 is applied, Rs.1,15,290/- comes towards loss of dependency and an amount of Rs.25,000/-more can be granted for other heads towards pain and suffering as the deceased died on the next day and towards funeral expenses etc. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.25,000/- compensation and the compensation comes to Rs.1,14,480/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.1,39,480/- rounded to Rs.1,40,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,14,480/- to Rs.1,40,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 16th November 2010, Rns