IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.327 of 2008 Between: Shaik Hyder @ Meraj & others … Appellants And: Mohd. Haji & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.327 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2007 in OP No.2823 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants herein was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,96,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellant filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their father Shaik Ahmed, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.10.2005. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was going on a cycle from Chandrayangutta towards Errakunta and when he reached near a grave-yard of Jamalbanda of Barkas, a lorry bearing No.AP 30 T 1296 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the cyclist, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. A case in Cr.No.218 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 52 years and was working as milk salesman in Asadullah Dairy Farm and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. 4. The owner of the vehicle-first respondent remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During the enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of appeal by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,96,500/-. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased only at Rs.3000/- per month in spite of oral evidence of the employer-PW.3 and the salary certificate Ex.A.7 showing that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in applying lesser multiplier of ‘8’ instead of suitable multiplier of ‘11’ for assessing the loss of dependency. 7. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was working as milk salesman in Asadullah Dairy Farm. PW.3-owner of the Asadullah Dairy Farm was examined and the salary certificate Ex.A.7 was also filed to show that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The contents of Ex.A.7 certificate are duly proved by PW.3. The Tribunal however ignored Ex.A.7 on the ground that the acquittance register or attendance register pertaining to the deceased has not been produced. The deceased was employed in a private organization and the employer is examined as PW.3, who testified that the deceased was working as salesman on a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The testimony of PW.3 is not discredited in any manner. Simply because the other registers supposed to be maintained by the organization are not produced, the Tribunal ought not to have ignored the salary certificate Ex.A.7, the contents of which are duly proved through the oral evidence of PW.3. Even otherwise, the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month taken as income by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side, having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as salesman, inasmuch as an ordinary labourer can be expected to earn average wages of Rs.100/- per day. The salary certificate however does not disclose the deductions if any made from the salary. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family can be estimated at Rs.2700/- per month. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. As per the recent decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier for the age of 52 years would be ‘11’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works to Rs.3,56,400/- [Rs.2700/- x 12 x 11], but the same is limited to Rs.3,00,000/- which is the amount claimed by the appellants. The claimants are entitled for interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded from the date of petition and at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.11.2011 bss