THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.636 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 25.09.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said claim application ﬁled by the appellants herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein ﬁled the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased-K.Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2005. 1st claimant is the wife; 2nd claimant is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. According to them, on that day, when the deceased was going by walk along the road side near telephone exchange at about 2.15 p.m., an RTC bus bearing No.11Z 4580, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the deceased as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.1 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the bus. It is pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged 30 years; working as a mason and earning Rs.4500/- per month. 4. 1st respondent-driver of the oﬀending vehicle remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-APSRTC ﬁled a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the appellants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said ﬁnding is not challenged by way of any appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- with interest @ 7.5%p.a., from the date of the petition. Not satisﬁed with the same, claimants ﬁled the present appeal seeking enhancement. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as per the II Schedule of the Act, though the petitioner is working as mason and earning Rs.4500/- per month. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner was working as a mason and was aged 30 years. No doubt, claimants have not adduced any evidence in proof of the income of the deceased, which is claimed at Rs.4500/- per month. Even if the deceased is considered to be a coolie, it can be reasonably estimated that he would be earning around Rs.100/- per day on an average. Once it is shown that the deceased was pursuing some avocation and was capable of earning income as he was hale and hearty and was aged around 30 years, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the notional income of Rs.15,000/-, treating the deceased as a non-earning member. In the circumstances, it is considered just and reasonable to estimate the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘17’, which is considered appropriate to the age of the deceased. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,08,000/- ( Rs.24,000/- X 17). However, claimants have restricted their claim only to Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, they are entitled for the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of the appeal. The impugned award is modiﬁed accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th November, 2011 Tsy