THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.426 of 1999 JUDGMENT: One Mr.Satyanarayana, son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 to 5 was said to be a scooter mechanic. On 08.04.1996, he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AEA-2250 together with a pillion rider towards Bhongir. On the way, a lorry beating No.AP-28T-6044 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent dashed against the scooter and Satyanarayana received serious injuries. He died on the spot. Crime No.14 of 1996 was registered by the P.S. Bibinagar. The appellants filed O.P.No.359 of 1996 in the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years and that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Through order, dated 17.09.1998, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.72,600/- as compensation and apportioned the same among the appellants. Not satisfied with that, they filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased therein are not disputed. Though P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, is not an eye-witness, P.W.2, the eye witness clearly stated the manner, in which the accident occurred. He was the person, who lodged the complaint. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. So far as the compensation is concerned, though the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.900/- per month. One-third was deducted towards his personal expenditure and multiplier ‘8’ was applied, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Bhagwandaas vs. Mohd. Arif[1]. By the time the accident occurred, II Schedule was appended to the Motor Vehicles. Act. According to that, even where no evidence is adduced, about the income of the victim of an accident, it can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The multipliers were also standardized. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.15,000/- and half thereof is deducted and towards personal expenditure, since he is unmarried, loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.7,500/- per annum. The age of the younger appellant must be taken into account for choosing the multiplier. The age of the 1st respondent at the relevant point of time was 39 years. According to the II schedule, the relevant multiplier is ‘16’. The resultant figure would be Rs.1,20,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- standardized towards funeral expenses etc. under Schedule II deserves to be awarded. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,30,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.426 of 1999 Date: 23.12.2011 JSU [1] 1986(2) ALT 137