THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1204 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated 28.02.2006, whereunder a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one N.Narendra Kumar Kesavulu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. The facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that on 27.04.2003, at about 8 pm., while the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 21/E 7891 near Devanakonda, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata (Spacio) bearing registration No.AP-05-AE/TR-2175, in which the deceased died. Hence, the first petitioner-the wife and the second petitioner-the minor daughter of the deceased respectively filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation. To prove the case, on behalf of the claimants, the first claimant got herself examined as P.W-1 and two other witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-33 were marked. On behalf of the third respondent, who is alleged to be the adoptive mother of the deceased, Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked and none was examined. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Tata (Spacio). The details as regards the manner of the accident etc are not gone into in this appeal as the same are not disputed. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Standing counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred to take into consideration the evidence of P.W-3 while assessing the income of the deceased and hence, prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-insurer contended that the Tribunal appreciated the entire evidence on record from a right perspective and as such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. Heard both the sides. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that P.W.3 is the working partner of the firm in which the deceased was employed. P.W-3 in categorical terms deposed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month. Exs.A-24 to A-28 are the certificates given by their auditor confirming the details of salaries of the employees of the firm, which shows the total of the salaries of all the employees including the salary of the deceased given as Rs.6,000/- per month. He further deposed that the deceased was paid Rs.4,000/- per month during the years 1999 to 2001 and Rs.5,000/- per month during the years 2001 and 2002 and Rs.6,000/- per month during the year 2002- 2003. From this, it is evident that there is a future prospect that there will be a hike in the salary of the deceased in the coming years. Thus, the salary of the deceased can safely be taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of his death. Keeping in view these aspects, if the salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,500/-, his annual earnings comes to Rs.78,000/-. If 1/3rd of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, his annual contribution to his family comes to Rs.52,000/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased at 23 years, which is supported by the contents of Ex.A-3-post-mortem certificate, by applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,36,000/-. Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,58,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,05,00/- to Rs.9,58,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 17th March 2011 dr