THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2508 of 2007 Oral judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award and decree dated 09.07.2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Kadapa, in M.V.O.P. No. 163 of 2005, awarding compensation of Rs. 6,70,000/- to the appellants as against their claim Rs.30,00,000/-, contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and requires enhancement. On 02.11.2004, at about 3.00 p.m., while the deceased was on his way from Kadapa to Badvel on his motorcycle, he met with an accident when a bus bearing AP 10Z 9699 belonging to respondent- APSRTC, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit him. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. A cash of rash and negligent driving against the bus driver was registered. The deceased at the time of accident was aged 32 years and was hale and healthy. Prior to his death, he worked as Mechanic in Saudi Arabia and earned around Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants, who are his wife and minor son, filed the M.V.O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- . Respondent No.1-APSRTC filed written statement denying the averments made by the appellants in the M.V.O.P. and contended that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle lost control and dashed against the front side of the bus. He contended that the accident in which the deceased died was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased and not the driver of the bus. He thus prayed that the M.V.O.P. be dismissed. Respondent Nos. 2 to 3, who are the father, mother and sister of the deceased also filed their counter stating that they are also dependant on the income of the deceased and that they are also entitled to share in the compensation. Before the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A12, while respondent No.1 examined R.W.1 and marked Ex. B1, and no evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Tribunal, having considered the issues framed by it in the light of the evidence adduced, held that the accident in which the deceased died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, and considering the fact that the deceased was a skilled worker and had a permit to work in Saudi Arabia, fixed his income notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month, after deducing one-third towards is personal expenses, and by applying the multiplier 16, arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.6,40,000/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- to appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, transport charges, mental agony and suffering. Thus in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,70,000/- as compensation to the appellants-claimants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased worked as Mechanic in Saudi Arabia and earned around Rs.20,000/- per month and considering the fact that he still had a work permit, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation based on the income earned by him, but it committed an error in taking the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, he prayed that the compensation be enhanced by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-APSRTC contended that even though the deceased had a work permit, but in the absence of positive evidence produced to show that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of fixing the compensation. Hence, she prayed that the order under appeal be confirmed and the M.A.C.M.A. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-APSRTC. None appeared for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Even though the appellants-claimants contended that the deceased as Mechanic in Saudi Arabia was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the fact remains, they did not produce any document to show that he was earning that much income per month. P.W.3 whom the appellants examined deposed that himself and the deceased worked in Saudi Arabia, and that the deceased was earning 1200 riyals, which is equivalent to Rs.15,000/- as is evident from Ex. A12. Considering the fact that the deceased was a skilled worker (Mechanic) and had a work permit to work in Saudi Arabia and there being demand for skilled workers in Gulf countries, we are of the considered opinion that the notional income of the deceased instead of Rs.5,000/- taken by the Tribunal, can be fixed at Rs.250/- per day, which comes to Rs.7,500/- per month. Out of the said amount, one-third should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and after deduction, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. Even though the appellants contended that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 32 years, but the evidence on record showed that he was aged 37 years. The multiplier applicable to a person aged 37 as per the judgment of the Apex Court i n Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is 15. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 15 (Rs.60,000/- x 15), the compensation which the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would be entitled to is Rs.9,00,000/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, respondent No.1 is entitled to only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, and accordingly the same stands reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. While the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, transport charges, mental agony and suffering, stands confirmed. Thus, in all the appellant- claimants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,25,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,70,000/- to Rs.9,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 24th November, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121