THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1309 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent in O.P.No.479 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant herein. 2. A claim was made for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Subramanyam in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioner, when the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP 03/C 3497 from Tirupati to Sri Kalahasthi and near Isuka Kaluva bridge at about 10.30 p.m., the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA 04 A 7786 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the deceased received injuries and died. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was a driver of the road roller and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed a counter that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the earning capacity of the deceased is not correct and therefore, the claim for compensation is not tenable. The liability is also disputed. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. The lower Tribunal considered the evidence and granted a compensation of Rs.4,63,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- on questioning that the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal without any basis has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and also granted a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, which are not legal. Evidently, to prove that the deceased was a driver and was having valid driving licence, no document is filed. Therefore, the fixation of the income at Rs.3,000/- is on a higher side without any basis and therefore, the income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month and the annual contribution can be fixed at Rs.16,000/-. In view of the judgment in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], multiplier for the age group of ‘30’ is ‘16’. The total compensation comes to Rs.16,000/- x 16 = 2,56,000/-. The petitioner will be entitled to non-pecuniary damages of Rs.10,000/-. As the 1st petitioner has lost her husband, she is entitled for a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and as there are number of dependants on the deceased, the total compensation is fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. Accordingly, the award of the lower Tribunal modified by fixing the compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum. The lower Tribunal has apportioned the amount and the 1st petitioner, the mother of the deceased, and she shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw. So far as the petitioners 3 to 6 are concerned, all of them are minors, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each is apportioned to their share and it shall be kept in a bank deposit till they attain majority and the 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically. The balance amount is apportioned to the share of the 2nd petitioner and she is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.25,000/-. If already the petitioners have withdrawn any amounts, which were already deposited, the lower court shall pass necessary orders with regard to the withdrawals. If the petitioners have already withdrawn any amount in pursuance of the orders of this Court, keeping in view of the above direction, the lower Tribunal shall pass necessary orders of apportionment. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 14.07.2011 INL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298