THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A No.1624 of 2001 Date: 13.4.2010 Between: Veerla Nagajyothi, Guntur and others Petitioners/appellants. And D. Rajalinga Murgesan, And Insurance Company. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A No.1624 of 2004 JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P No.392 of 1998 challenging the award dated 14.3.2001 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Veerla Venkateswarlu, who is a driver by profession and on 29.4.1998 he was driving the lorry bearing No.TAR 3100, which met with an accident. The involvement of the said lorry was proved and the learned Tribunal held that the 1st respondent who is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company with which the lorry was insured are jointly and severally liable, which finding became final and need not be reappraised in this appeal once again since the appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal, on considering the oral testimony of P.W.1, who is the widow, P.W.2 who is the owner of the Tata Sumo Vehicle, on which the deceased was employed as a Driver and also basing on Ex.A5- driving license produced by the claimants, arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was a driver by profession, which needs no interference in this appeal. However, the learned Tribunal considering that no documentary evidence is adduced in proof of the income of the deceased took the income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is provided in the II Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to the non earning persons awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/-. I am of the view that the deceased being a driver by profession cannot be equated with the non-earning persons. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1998, for the purpose of computing compensation, I take the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month, his annual income will come to Rs.24,000/-, from this 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenditure, which comes to Rs.16,000/-. The multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased 30 years (as per the II Schedule) is ‘18’. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with multiplier ‘18’ which comes to Rs.16,000 x ‘18’ = Rs.2,88,000/-, this apart the 1st appellant who is the widow of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In this appeal the appellants/claimants are granted total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.98,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 13.04.2010 mrb