HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2749 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the claimants in O.P.No.254 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The appellants-claimants filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased A.Peddi Raju on 02-01-2003, when a lorry bearing Regn. No.AP 28 U 5929 is said to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The deceased was said to be employed as a gardener earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurance company. 4. The insurance company has filed counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence attracted to the driver of the lorry and the nature of the incident and earning capacity of the deceased. After taking into consideration the material available on record, the lower Tribunal has accepted the nature of the incident and cause of death and granted compensation of Rs.2,16,600/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 6. So far as the nature of the incident and the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute and so far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, no appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the income of the deceased earning Rs.6,000/- per month as gardener was proved by the evidence of P.W.3. But, however, the lower Tribunal has only fixed his earning at Rs.1800/- and the quantum of compensation is not proper. 8. Evidently, the employment of the deceased was not permanent. The evidence of P.W.3 is also not clear as to how long the deceased was in employment and the grape garden is said to be belonging to the father of P.W.3, Kesavareddy and P.W.3 issued the salary certificate. Such type of evidence without proof of earning cannot be taken into consideration. However, there is no material to show that the deceased was educated or having any technical qualification. 9. On taking into consideration the above facts, the income of the deceased can be fixed fairly at Rs.2,000/- and after deducting the personal expenditure, the contribution to the family can be fixed at Rs.1400/- and the annual contribution comes to Rs.16,800/-. So far as the multiplier is concerned, since the age of the deceased was 42, the lower Tribunal fixed the multiplier at ‘14’ and there is no error. The total dependency comes to Rs.2,35,200/-. Added to that the petitioners should be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/- and as the 1st petitioner lost her husband, she is entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total compensation, they should be entitled to Rs.2,55,200/-, rounded off to Rs.2,56,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty six thousand only). 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ________________ 04-11-2011 kvr