THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.919 of 2001 Dated:03.06.2010 Between: B.Latha alias Madhumathi, And others. …Petitioners and A.Kamala, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.919 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) This is an appeal from the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.314 of 1999. The appellants are the claimants, who are legal heirs of deceased Malla Reddy. They filed the claim petition for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Malla Reddy in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.12.1998. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim awarded an amount of Rs.5,25,000/-. Now the challenge in the present appeal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it was not properly computed. Therefore, the remaining questions which attained finality need not be adverted into. Heard both sides. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of the accident. The claimants adduced enough evidence in proof of the fact that the deceased was doing bore-well business and he was also having agricultural lands. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence adduced by the claimants only considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month from the bore-well business and did not consider the loss to the agricultural income on the premise that the deceased who was engaged in bore- well business might have no time to spend in the agriculture, with which we differ since being the head of the family he can supervise the agriculture and on account of his death there will be supervisory loss. Therefore, in our view the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of agricultural income also. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased which is mentioned in Ex.A9 – Income Tax returns, which seems to be appropriate. Considering the age and involvement of the deceased in the business as well as in agriculture we are inclined to consider the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns – Ex.A9, for the purpose of computing compensation. The annual income from bore-well business is Rs.60,000/- and it is Rs.30,000/- from agriculture. In all, the income is Rs.90,000/- per annum. Since the dependants are more than four, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased. Then the annual contribution comes to Rs.67,500/-. Learned Tribunal is not correct in applying multiplier of 14.81, and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier of 17 which is relevant to the age of the deceased as per the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We arrive at the loss of dependency as follows. The above amount i.e., Rs.67,500/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand five hundred only) has to be multiplied with multiplier 17 which comes to Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty seven thousand five hundred only). In this appeal, the first appellant is the widow of the deceased and she is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards loss of consortium and all the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards loss of estate, and further, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.11,67,500/- (11,47,500 + 10,000 + 5,000 + 5,000) (Rupees eleven lakhs sixty seven thousand five hundred only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _____________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 03.06.2010 vs