IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWNETY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3471 of 2008 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad … Appellant And: Ugadi Ramulamma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3471 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2007 in OP No.37 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said application ﬁled by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein ﬁled claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Komaraiah in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.01.2004. The ﬁrst claimant is the wife and 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased. According to them, on that day, while the deceased was proceeding on a cycle from Kuntlur towards Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 2555 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver coming in the opposite direction on wrong side of the road, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries, including head injury and died in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. 4. The 3rd respondent herein the owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The appellant-insurer ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. No witnesses were examined, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said ﬁnding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer ﬁled the present appeal, mainly disputing the quantum of compensation awarded. 6. The deceased was stated to be centring mason and aged 40 years. Though the claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month, they have not adduced any evidence in support of the said claim. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- per month, holding that the deceased being a mason, at least he could have earned Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day. PW.3 Centring Labour contractor, under whom the deceased was said to be working, testiﬁed that the deceased was a centring mason. Even otherwise, assuming that the deceased was an ordinary labourer, the amount of Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day and at Rs.2500/- per month taken by the Tribunal as income of the deceased is just and reasonable and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family was taken at Rs.1500/- per month, which is quite reasonable. Thus, the actual loss of contribution of the deceased to the family was estimated at Rs.18,000/- per year and applying the relevant multiplier ‘15’, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. Even as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 40 years is ‘15’ and the same was rightly applied by the Tribunal. As per the above decision, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the ﬁrst claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-, but however with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modiﬁed accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2011 bss