HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2965 of 2004 Between Redyam Sarojamma and another v. redyam chandrasekhar reddy and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2965 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1) The claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP No.94 of 2001 in its order dated 3-12-2003 for the death of deceased c. Redyam Chandra Sekhar Reddy in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17-5-2000. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 17-5-2000 at about 5.30 a.m. the deceased along with Redyam Venkata Subba Reddy, who is cousin of R-1 were sitting on the sand loaded by them in the tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 04 T 8021 and 8022, were proceeding on the metal road to unload the sand in the fields of R-1 and that at that time the lights of the tractor suddenly stopped functioning and the lights failed completely. As it was metal road and the lights failed completely, the driver lost control over the tractor and trailor and it turned turtle. As a result of which the deceased and another person fell down from the tractor, the sand completely covered them. On hearing the cries of the driver some persons came to the accident spot, they lifted both the persons, who died due to the injuries. The deceased was working as labourer and aged about 23 years at the time of accident, therefore the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased. 3) Before the Tribunal the owner of the tractor and trailor remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 marked on behalf of the claimants, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondents therein, by applying the principle of res- ipsa liquitur, rightly so, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailor, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 4) Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 5) Learned counsel for the appellants- claimants contended that the deceased was working as labourer, and that the Tribunal did not applied the proper multiplication method for awarding the just compensation and that no amount was awarded towards loss of estate. On the other hand, learned counsel supported the impugned order. 6) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as labourer and was aged 23 years at the time of his death, therefore, the monthly income of an labourer can be taken as Rs.2,500/- per month notionally and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses the loss of dependency annually comes to Rs.20,000/-, and considering the fact that the deceased died at the age of 23 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), is 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/- ( i.e. Rs.2500 x 1/3 x 12 x 18 = 3,60,000). Thus the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, and further sum of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. 7) In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation subject to payment of additional court fee on the enhanced amount and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in NAGAPPA v GURUDAYAL SINGH ( 2002 (8) SUPREME 497). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-7-2010 kk/ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.2965 of 2004 22-7-2010