THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.758 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award passed in O.P.No.353 of 2001 dated 31.10.2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Warangal. The impugned award is one of the several other claims arising out of the same accident. The Tribunal clubbed and disposed of all the O.Ps., by the common order. This appeal arises out of the award passed in O.P.No.353 of 2001. 2. The first claimant is the wife of Komuraiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in the accident that occurred on 4.02.2001, claimants 2 and 3 are their children, and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. 3. Briefly stating, it is the case of the claimants that on 4.02.2001, the deceased was carrying some persons in his jeep bearing registration No.AAE 2659 from Beruwada to Mahabubabad. A lorry bearing registration No.AP27/T-774 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction, hit the jeep and caused the death of the deceased on the spot. Some others also died in the said accident. The deceased was a driver-cum-owner of the said jeep. Contending that the deceased was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.6000/- p.m., the claimants filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The owner-cum-driver of the offending lorry was impleaded as respondent No.1 and the Insurer of the said lorry was as respondent No.2. The first respondent-owner-cum-driver of the lorry, remained ex parte, and the second respondent-insurance company contested the claim petition. 5. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal formulated the issues, - whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver or due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the jeep; the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death; whether the claimants were entitled for compensation, and to what amount. To what relief? 6. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and examined one D. Venkanna as PW.11 and documents i.e, inquest report (Ex.A.2), Postmortem certificate (Ex.A.3), RC book of the jeep (Ex.A.4), the driving licence and badge of the deceased (Exs.A.5 & A.6), transport permit (Ex.A.7), and Xerox copy of the Insurance policy (Ex.A.8) were marked on her behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd from out of it towards his personal expenses, estimated the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- p.a., and applying multiplier ‘18’ awarded Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,54,000/- towards compensation. Not satisfied with the said quantum, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 8. This appeal has been dismissed for default against the first respondent by order dated 28.01.2010. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- p.m., as driver-cum-owner of the jeep. To support the said contention, the evidence of PWs.1 and 11 are sought to be relied upon. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded the conventional amounts. The counsel would therefore contend that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same needs no interference in this appeal. 12. Since this appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to rash and negligent driving, need not be gone into in this appeal. 13. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded, if so, to what amount? 14. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence, she stated that her husband was earning Rs.6000/- p.m. But in her cross- examination in connected O.P.No.728 of 2001, which was filed seeking damages arising out of the same accident, she admitted that the income of the deceased was Rs.3000/-. The Tribunal rightly accepted it and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- p.m. The Tribunal however deducted 1/3rd from out of the said amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Apex Court in Saralavarma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] held that in a case of death where dependants are 4 to 6 in number, only 1/4th is liable to be deducted. Applying the same, it is to be held that the contribution of the deceased should be computed at Rs.2,250/- p.m. (Rs.3000 – 750 = Rs.2,250). Therefore the annual dependency would come to Rs.27,000/- (Rs.2,250 x 12). The undisputed age of the deceased was 27 years. Applying the principles in the aforesaid judgment, the multiplier is only ‘17’ but not ‘18’ as applied by the Tribunal. So computed, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,59,000/- (Rs.27,000 x 17). Even though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, it did not award the other conventional amounts towards loss of estate and transport charges. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards transport charges. Thus it is to be held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- as against Rs.4,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; the difference being Rs.39,000/- as enhancement in this appeal. The enhanced compensation would carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realization. The award dated 31.10.2002 passed in O.P.No.353 of 2001 is accordingly modified against respondent No.2. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th August, 2010 Js. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121