HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2164 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.54 of 1999 vide judgment dated 20-12-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 2. Appellants, who are children of the deceased Perumalla Poleramma, are applicants, respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer, respectively, of the lorry (oil tanker) bearing No.ADJ 2149 involved in the accident, are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- to 150/- a day by selling fish and she died in the accident on 03-03-1998 on account of collision between autorickshaw bearing No.AP5 – X – 3383, in which the deceased was travelling, and the lorry bearing No.ADJ – 2149 being driven by respondent No.1 on the beach road at Vakalapudi Light Houe Peta at 3-00 PM. Father of the claimants died prior to the death of the deceased. Thus, they lost their only breadwinner of the family. Hence, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, driver of the lorry, filed his counter denying the case of the claimants. Respondent No.2, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.3, insurer of the lorry, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took Place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of Tanker lorry No.ADJ 2149? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except marking insurance policy of the lorry as Ex.B-1 with consent. 9. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,18,500/- to the claimants apportioning the same between them against all the respondents jointly and severally. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal. 10. Since the Tribunal held that accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver (respondent No.1) of the lorry tanker belonging to respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 and awarded compensation against all the respondents making them liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally and as the respondents have not preferred any appeal questioning the same, there cannot be any dispute about the accident and liability of the respondents for payment of compensation to the claimants, as such, there is no need to go into those questions. 11. Therefore, the only question that has to be answered now is with regard to quantum of compensation as the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation. 12. The deceased, who belongs to fishermen community and widow, was said to be aged 40 years at the time of accident. The finding of the Tribunal is that by selling fish, deceased was earning Rs.60/- a day on average and Rs.1,800/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards her personal expenses, her monthly contribution to her family was calculated at Rs.1,200/- (Rs.1,800 x 1/3) per month, which comes to Rs.14,400/- per month and by applying multiplier 15, which is appropriate for the age group of the deceased, awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, totalling to Rs.2,18,500/-. Though the Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- a day on average, failed to see that apart from earning, deceased was attending to household work also. 13. Since the deceased was aged 40 years, at least she could have earned for about another 15 to 20 years. Apart from earning by selling fish, she was also attending to household work. She was a widow and maintaining the family. Therefore, towards maintenance of the household work and enhancement in future earnings, at least another Rs.20/- a day can be added to her gross income. Out of that if 1/3rd is deducted towards her personal expenses, her contribution to her family comes to Rs.13/- (Rs.20 x 1/3) a day and Rs.390/- per month, which comes to Rs.4,680/- (Rs.390/- x 12) per annum. If the same is capitalized with multiplier 15, as fixed by the Tribunal for the age group of the deceased, it comes to Rs.70,200/- (Rs.4,680 x 15), which can be rounded off to Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to another Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) towards loss of dependency and the same is accordingly awarded to them enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,88,500/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty eight thousand five hundred only) from Rs.2,18,500/-. The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of the M.V.O.P. till realization. The apportionment of the compensation between the claimants shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 15, 2010. PV