THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3096 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award, dated 17.08.2000, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.391/98. The claimants are the appellants herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. 3. The petitioners-appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Challa Chinna Venkateswarlu, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.05.1998. According to the case of the petitioners, the deceased Venkateswarlu was traveling in a lorry bearing No.AP-04-T-3164 along with his goods on 24.05.1998, and when the lorry reached Itikyala village, at about 4.00 a.m., another lorry bearing No.AP-10T-3474 coming in the opposite direction dashed the lorry in which the deceased was present, on account of which, the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.88 of 1998 was registered for the said accident. First respondent remained exparte. Second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 10T-3474? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the second respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.1,57,176/-. 4. The Court below has taken the age of the deceased at 35 years and the contribution to the family at Rs.800/- per month as the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Court below has granted very low compensation and the Court ought to have deduct 1/4th of the salary towards personal expenses of the deceased, who was a mason at the time of accident and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. There appears to be no serious dispute about the approximate age of the deceased being 35 years and consequently application of multiplier 14.81. The main dispute is with regard to the income of the deceased. According to the appellants, the deceased as a mason was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Absolutely there is no material to show that the deceased was a mason. As such, it has to be taken that the deceased was an ordinary labourer and as the accident has taken place in the year 1998, the income can be put at Rs.50/- a day, i.e. Rs.1500/- per month, out of that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure as the claimants are more than four. Thus, the annual family contribution of the deceased comes to Rs.13,500/-. If multiplier 14.81 is applied, the petitioners would be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- which can be rounded off to Rs.2.00 lakhs. Another amount of Rs.15,000/- can be added towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,57,176/- to Rs.2,15,000/-. The interest on the enhanced amount shall be paid at 7.5% per annum only from the date of petition. The entire enhanced amount shall be payable to petitioners 2 to 7 in equal proportions. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th June 2010, Rns