THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3280 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.01.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.386 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. A claim for compensation was made for Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Padmavathi in a motor accident. According to the claim of the petitioners on 21.07.2001 when the deceased was traveling in the auto, a lorry bearing No.AP 31W-655 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which the deceased received injuries and died. The deceased was said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The 3rd and 4th respondents, who are driver and owner of the auto, filed counter claiming that the accident was caused by the 1st respondent-driver of the offending lorry and they denied the liability. The 5th respondent filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of averments in the petition and denied the nature of accident, earnings of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the finding of the lower Tribunal about the rashness and negligence is concerned, the incident is said to have happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured with the 5th respondent-insurance company. The insurance company has not challenged the award. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the income of the deceased arrived at by the lower Tribunal is not correct. The deceased was said to be earning about Rs.3,000/- per month by doing coolie work. However, the lower Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.1,500/- per month and the contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.500/- even after finding that one-third has to be deducted. Evidently, it is a mathematical error and consequently the contribution to the family has to be fixed at Rs.1,000/- and since the age of the deceased is said to be 34 years, the multiplier ‘16’ has been applied by the lower Tribunal and the compensation comes to Rs.1,92,000/-. The petitioners are entitled to non-pecuniary damages at Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which were granted by the lower Tribunal. So far as the loss of consortium is concerned, the lower Tribunal has found that the 1st petitioner has re- married. But, the award shows that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium. However, the evidence is not clear as to how long after the incident the 1st petitioner has re-married. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,500/- is granted towards loss of consortium. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,06,500/- (Rupees two lakhs six thousand five hundred only). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum. The total enhanced compensation shall be paid to the petitioners 2 to 4 only as apportioned by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3280 of 2011 DATE: 02-12-2011 MR