HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.388 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree in O.P. No.568 of 1987 dated 19-01-1990 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District. 2. Claimants are appellants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. Claimant No.1 is wife of the deceased, claimant No.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased, respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry bearing No.ATK-6766, respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited is insurer of respondent No.1’s lorry and respondent No.3 is owner of the lorry bearing No. ATV – 3393 with a national permit to operate the lorry in five States and deceased was working as driver of that lorry. 5. Claimants’ case is that deceased, who was aged 25 years, was working as driver of the lorry belonging to respondent No.3 and was earning Rs.1,200/- per month. Respondent No.3 instructed the deceased to take the lorry from Proddutoor to Calcutta with groundnut oil, as the lorry was an oil tanker, while the deceased was driving the lorry bearing No.ATV – 3393 on 10-10-1987, at about 7-30 AM, near Yeravaram village, lorry bearing No.ATK – 6766, belonging to respondent No.1, coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry of the deceased and thus there was collision between two vehicles, as a result, deceased died and driver of the lorry of respondent No.1 also died. Hence, claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the death of the deceased. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte and only respondent No.2, insurance company, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Regd. No.6766, by its driver? 2. To what compensation the petitioners are entitled to ? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced except marking a copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B-1. 9. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.67,000/- to claimant No.1 alone, wife of the deceased, and refusing to grant any compensation to claimant No.2, who is said to be mother-in-law of the deceased, against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal is filed by the claimants. 10. The only question that has to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate ? 11. Claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- contending that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.1,200/- per month. Tribunal observed that the evidence on record is that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.15/- a day as batta and there is no evidence to show that how much amount he (deceased) used to contribute for the maintenance of his family. Claimants failed to adduce evidence as to exact income of the deceased. As stated by PW.1, deceased was not an experienced driver, as he obtained licence only in 1980. It is also observed that as claimant No.1 alone is dependant on the deceased, he might have been contributing Rs.3,000/- per annum and accordingly treating the deceased about 25 years old and applying multiplier 19, awarded a compensation of Rs.57,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards mental agony, totaling to Rs.67,000/-. 12. The Tribunal without arriving to any systematic conclusion with regard to exact income of the deceased, decided his contribution to his family as Rs.3,000/- per annum, which cannot be accepted. Even in 1987, income of Rs.1,200/- per month including batta of Rs.15/- a day cannot be said to be on higher side. However, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.1,200/- per month, at that rate his income comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum and out of that if 1/3rd of the amount is deducted (Rs.14,400/- x 1/3 = Rs.4,800/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution towards maintenance of his family comes to Rs.9,600/- per annum (Rs.14,400/- - Rs.4,800). Accordingly, if multiplier 19 is applied, as applied by the Tribunal, compensation towards loss of dependency alone comes to Rs.1,82,400/- (Rs.9,600 x 19) and it is without adding anything towards future enhancement in the income of the deceased and compensation under other heads. However, claim of the claimants is only Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, total compensation claimed by the claimants can be awarded. 13. Accordingly, compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimant No.1 is enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) from Rs.67,000/-. However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum only from the date of petition. It is made clear that on the remaining compensation, rate of interest shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. The enhanced amount shall be payable to claimant No.1 only. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to claimant No.1 immediately and the remaining 50% two years thereafter till which time the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 8, 2010. PV