THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No. 3230 of 2009 and Cross Objection (SR) No.43356 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2006 in O.P.No.772 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal filed cross objections (SR) No.43356 of 2009, seeking enhancement of compensation 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the respondent/claimants. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for the death of the deceased Malreddy Laxmamma who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.07.2005. The first claimant is the husband and the claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Malreddy Laxmamma. On that day, the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP24V 0915 to go to Kothagudem and that a lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 259 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto, as a result of which the deceased received injuries and subsequently died at Government Hospital Miryalguda while undergoing treatment. The police registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2005 against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.36,000/- per month from agriculture, besides looking after the entire domestic affairs and maintenance of the family members. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The appellant- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. a) Whether the deceased Malgireddy Laxmamma died in the road accident? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 259? b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased? c) To what relief? 6. During the enquiry PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer but a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 7. On consideration of evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry AP 16 W 259 by its driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the cross-objections. 8. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the Tribunal failed to make deduction of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. The learned counsel for the claimants-cross objectors on the other hand would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 60 years by looking at her photograph, though the evidence on record established that the deceased was aged 50 years. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erroneously taken notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum without taking into consideration the value of the service rendered by the deceased to the family. He would further contend that the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘8’ instead of ‘13’. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry AP 16 W 259 by its driver is not seriously challenged. It is not disputed that as per Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report and Ex.A-4-Inquest Report, the age of the deceased is noted as ‘50’ years. In the claim application also, it is stated that the deceased was aged 50 years. The said age as pleaded, has been duly proved by the documentary evidence Ex.A-1, Ex.A-3 and Ex.-A-4. The Tribunal however ignored the same and by looking at a photograph said to have been produced before it, which is not marked as an exhibit, has assumed the age of the deceased as 60 years. Such a course is impermissible, especially when the claimants have adduced evidence to show that the deceased was aged only 50 years. The appropriate multiplier for a person aged 50 years is ‘13’, as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. 10. Regarding the income, the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was admittedly house-wife. She left behind the husband and three children who were certainly deprived of the valuable services rendered by the deceased and the domestic help and assistance from her. On account of the untimely and tragic death, the value of the said services of the deceased as house-maker and the value of the domestic help and assistance rendered by her have to be necessarily estimated and taken into consideration while fixing the just and reasonable compensation. In the absence of any specific evidence in that regard, it is considered that having regard to the age of the deceased as 50 years, the value of the services of the deceased can be reasonably estimated at Rs.1,500/- per month which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. As the said amont represents the services of the deceased, but not any income as such earned by her, the question of making any deduction there from towards personal expenses does not arise. Applying the multiplier of ‘13’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,34,000/-. By adding sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium for the first claimant and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.1,000/- towards pecuniary damages, awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation payable comes to Rs.2,53,500/-. 11. The claimants have however claimed only a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- in the claim application. Hence, they are entitled for the said amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as claimed by them with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The amount awarded is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed as stated above. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J June 13, 2011 SP HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No. 3230 of 2009 and Cross Objection (SR) No.43356 of 2009 June 13, 2011 SP [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)