THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3330 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant No.1 filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 02.12.2003, passed in O.P.No.1171 of 2002 by the IV Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 24/25.03.2002 at about 1.00 a.m., in Thangadepally Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, while one Ramulu (hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) was going by walk by the side of the road, Scooter bearing No.AP-11B-6595 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which, the deceased sustained fracture injuries all over his body and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants, who are the wife and sons of the deceased, filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-payable by respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the scooter. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,31,000/-to the claimants. Disputing the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased on lower side and thereby granted less compensation to the claimants and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation. 4. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, stated that the deceased was working as labourer and was getting Rs.3,000/- per month. As the said amount was on higher side, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.40/- per day, which comes to Rs.1200/- per month and after deducting 1/3r d from the said amount towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was mentioned as 65 years in the post mortem report, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘5’ and arrived at the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs.48,000/- and accordingly awarded the said amount to them. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- to the first claimant towards loss of consortium and further awarded Rs.15,000/- to the claimants towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- only towards hospital expenses, though the deceased died 16 days after the accident and while undergoing treatment. The claimants have not examined anybody to prove Ex.A.6-CDR Hospital Bill, which was issued for Rs.1,19,097.61 ps. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 24/25-03-2002 and the deceased died on 09.04.2002, and therefore, it is clear that the deceased was in hospital for a period of 16 days and he must have spent huge amount for medicines, apart from the hospital expenses, and it appears that the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect while awarding compensation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,31,000/- to Rs.1,81,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.09.2010 va