HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.3051 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.299 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, dated 14.07.2000. The factual background for the appeal is that Sri M.Satya Reddy was going to Janampet on scooter No.AAM 1569 on 01.03.1996 and when he reached Sherpally–H Cross Roads on National Highway No.7, a lorry bearing No. AAT 2575 coming in the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently in a high speed dashed against the scooter. Sri M.Satya Reddy died on the spot and Annasagar police registered Crime No.26 of 1996 against the lorry driver. Sri M.Satya Reddy, who was 25 years old and who was running Raghavendra Poultry Cages at Hyderabad with 25 to 26 labourers, was earning Rs.10,000/- P.M. and the contribution of his entire income to the family was lost due to his untimely death. Therefore, his wife, two minor sons and mother filed the claim for a compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs against the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the petitioners and the manner of the accident, claiming the negligence of the deceased himself, who was not able to drive the scooter properly, not having any driving licence, to have contributed to the accident and, therefore, the owner and insurer of the scooter are also necessary parties to the claim. The compensation claimed was excessive and hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed the issues on the responsibility for the accident, entitlement of the claimants to compensation and the liability of the respondents and examined PWs.1 to 4 during enquiry, while marking Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of PW.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1, first information report, and Ex.A.2, charge sheet, which has probablised the rash and negligent driving of the lorry to be the cause for the accident. The absence of any evidence for the insurer was also taken note of on this aspect. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the claim that the deceased was running Raghavendra Poultry Cages at Kompally, Ranga Reddy District employing about 25 to 26 people and was owning Ac.24.00 of agricultural land. The Tribunal also noted that it was claimed that the employees were paid Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,500/- p.m. each and that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. from business and agriculture. The evidence of PW.3 about the issuance of licence for the business, the evidence of PW.4 about his purchasing the poultry cages manufactured by the deceased for his poultry farm and the documents filed in corroboration of the oral evidence about the business in Exs.A.6 to A.13 were also referred to by the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed that no income tax returns showing the income and taxable profits of the business had been filed. The bill books and the other documents do not indicate as to what would have been the expenditure on or income from the business of the deceased. The Tribunal further noted that the lands stand in the name of his wife and her mother as seen from Exs.A.10 and A.11 and, therefore, the deceased, only looking after the agriculture on behalf of the real owners, cannot be considered to be earning any income from the agriculture. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/- p.m. from the business and deducted Rs.750/- towards his personal expenses and assessed his contribution at Rs.1,500/- p.m. The age of the deceased was 25 years as seen from Ex.A.1, First Information Report, Ex.A.3, Post-Mortem Report and Ex.A.4, Inquest Report, and a multiplier of ‘18’ was adopted. The amount of compensation was consequently arrived at Rs.3,24,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was granted towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal noted that as Ex.B.1, insurance policy, was subsisting at the relevant time, both the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and accordingly granted the said compensation against both the respondents with interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs. It also gave directions regarding disbursement of compensation. The claimants being aggrieved by the said compensation approached this Court contending that the assessment of the monthly income at Rs.2,250/- from the business without taking into consideration the agricultural income from Ac.24.00 was incorrect. The claimants also contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were not properly appreciated and the positive evidence of PW.4 about the business and income of the deceased could be the basis for arriving at the just compensation. Therefore, it is desired that the entire compensation claimed be awarded. Sri A.Vishnu Vardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-insurer are heard. None appeared on behalf of the first respondent-Syed Ibrahim before this Court also. In so far as the findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the subsistence of Ex.B.1, insurance policy, and joint and several responsibility of both the respondents are concerned, there was no challenge by any of the parties and, therefore, the conclusions have become final. The only question left open is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4, corroborated by the documents filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, remained uncontroverted by any evidence for the respondents and a close perusal of the evidence shows that nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 4 to doubt the acceptability of their claim. The ownership of Ac.24.00 of land with the first petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased and the mother of the first petitioner, has been probablised by Exs.A.10 and A.11 and the deceased looking after the agricultural activity on behalf of his wife and his mother-in-law is in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events. By his death at the prime age of 25, the wife and mother had lost the valuable assistance of the deceased for carrying on the agricultural activity in their lands and the said loss also has to be assessed to the extent possible in terms of monetary loss due to loss of management of the cultivation by the deceased. Apart from the loss of assistance to the first petitioner and her mother in cultivating Ac.24.00 of agricultural land, the death of the deceased also deprived the petitioners’ of the contribution of the income of the deceased to the family. The income of the deceased from running Raghavendra Poultry Cages at Kompally, Ranga Reddy District was admitted to be probablised through Exs.A.6 to A.9, business licences, Ex.A.12, attendance register and Ex.A.13, bill books. The fact that he was running such an industry, employing about 25 to 26 people thereunder, cannot be factually disputed in the light of the said documents and also the positive evidence of PW.3 about issuing licences for running such a business and PW.4 about purchasing Poultry Cages from the deceased for his poultry farm. Even if the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 were to be considered as tainted with interestedness, the independent nature of the other two witnesses corroborated by the documents referred to above indicates that the deceased must have been earning a decent income from the business he was so running. There was no definite documentary evidence about the quantum of income being derived from the business, in the absence of any income tax returns or such other material. However, a person employing about 25 to 26 people in his business must be paying at least the minimum wages prescribed by the statute to his employees and if he were paying such wages for 25 to 26 employees and was running such a business at a place other than his place of residence, he must be doing so only if he was getting good returns from the business. Even assuming that there would be a natural exaggeration in the income claimed by the claimants in order to get higher compensation, their claim could not have been dismissed totally as unreal. The assessment of the monthly income at Rs.2,250/- is highly conservative and may not be in a reasonable proportion to the nature of the business probablised on the evidence on record. Keeping in view all the facts, including the loss of supervision or management over the agricultural activity in Ac.24.00, the monthly income of the deceased could have been reasonably assessed at Rs.4,500/- atleast in which assessment, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable and for which assessment the experience and wisdom of the Court primarily offers the basis with reference to the material on record. If the income were to be so assessed at Rs.4,500/- p.m. and Rs.1,500/- were to be deducted at 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses which the deceased would have incurred if he had been alive, the contribution to the family would have been assessed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and the assessment of the age of the deceased and the application of ‘18’ multiplier are not seriously disputed by the claimants. If so, the compensation towards the loss of contribution of the income to the family would have been arrived at Rs.6,48,000/-. While such grant of compensation under that head would not have taken care of the other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimants would have been entitled to, they are also taken into account sufficiently when the Tribunal had already awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards other non-pecuniary damages. Taking an overall view, it is therefore to be concluded that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.3,24,000/-.The said quantum of enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. keeping in view the fact that such interest has to be paid right from the date of petition i.e. 1996 upto the date of payment or realization and proportionate costs would have to naturally follow such enhanced compensation. In the result, the award dated 14.07.2000 in O.P.No.299 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.3,24,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:13.08.2010 usd