HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1337 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 29.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 528 of 1997 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the death of one Katta Lakshminarayana in a road accident that occurred on 25.03.1995 at about 10.00 a.m while the deceased was going on his cycle from N.Nagulapalli to Bhimadole and after crossing M.Nagulappalli Centre, the crime vehicle Mini Lorry bearing No. ADJ 9798 driven by the first respondent driver, dashed the deceased from behind and due to which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot due to multiple injuries. First respondent-driver of Mini Lorry bearing No. ADJ 9798 remained exparte. The second respondent-owner of the mini lorry filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. Third respondent- Insurance Company also filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing No. ADJ 9798, awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/- payable by all the respondents jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, appellants-claimant filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Court below ought to have awarded the compensation by reckoning the income of the deceased at least at Rs. 1500/- per month but not at Rs. 1050/- and the same is without any basis. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the claimants lost their sole breadwinner who was young and healthy person of 23 years and the claim for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is quite reasonable but an award of Rs. 42,000/- is very nominal and the same does not meet the sustenance of the appellants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and the same needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing No. ADJ 9798 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was 23 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy and was doing coolie work earning Rs. 1500/- per month and maintaining his family who are completely depending upon him. As the claimants had not filed any document to show the actual income of the deceased the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 1050/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. Due to increase of cost of living, a coolie is getting Rs. 50/- to 70/- per day. Therefore, I feel it appropriate Rs. 50/- per day would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the income of the deceased per month comes to Rs.1500 (Rs. 50x30=1500), per annum it comes to Rs. 18,000/- (1500x12=18,000/-). In this case the deceased is a bachelor therefore, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] , 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. The relevant portion reads as under: “15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third” If deducted, the amount comes to Rs. 9,000/- (18,000/2=9000) and as the age of the deceased mother is 60 years, the appropriate multiplier is 9 as per SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR (supra-1), if applied the amount comes to Rs. 81,000/- (9,000x9=81,000). An amount of Rs. 12,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Now total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,08,000/-. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 42,000/- to Rs. 1,08,000/- and reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 12.8.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCLAE 129