THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CMA.No.1622 of 2000 and MA.C.M.A.No.3376 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: One Mr.Surendra Kumar Sahu, the husband of the first appellant and the father of appellant Nos.2 to 5, was employed as a driver on a lorry bearing No.OAC 8041, owned by the second respondent and insured with the fourth respondent. On 30.11.1993, when he was driving the vehicle from the State of Orissa towards Vizianagaram, an accident took place involving another vehicle bearing No.AP16 T 6615, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. That vehicle was driven by one Mr. Raghunath Panda, the son of appellant No.1, the husband of appellant No.2 and the father of appellant Nos.3 to 6 in C.M.A.No.1622 of 2000. In the accident, the drivers of both the vehicles died. O.P.Nos.231 and 269 of 1994 were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Vizianagaram, claiming a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation. Similar claims were made as regards wages and ages of the deceased persons. Through its common order, dated 24.04.1996, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the claimants in the respective O.Ps. These appeals are filed with a prayer to enhance the same. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. On account of a head on collision between two transport vehicles, drivers of both the vehicles died. It is rather incidental that both of them were of the same age. The appellants pleaded that the deceased were earning a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month towards their salaries and Rs.750/- per month as batta. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the drivers were proved through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4, copies of FIRs, inquest reports, postmortem certificates and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports. The salaries of the deceased were mentioned in Exs.A.7 and A.10 respectively. The Tribunal took the wages of the deceased drivers as Rs.1,200/- per month and refused to take into account the batta component. This Court is of the view that the payment of batta daily is almost a matter of course for a driver of a commercial vehicle. Rs.300/- can safely be taken as batta i.e. @ Rs.10/- per day. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased drivers would be Rs.1,500/- each. If 1/3rd is deducted towards their personal expenditure, their contribution to the families would be Rs.1,000/- per month and annual dependency would be Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier “12” on the ground that the active services of the deceased would be less than their ordinary life span. This theory is totally alien to the concept of multipliers. Though Schedule II was not in force when the accident took place, the support can be derived there from. For a person of 38 years, the relevant multiplier is “16”. Hence, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,92,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the wives of the deceased drivers towards consortium. No enhancement is warranted for that. No amount was awarded towards loss of estate. Rs.5,000/- is to be awarded on that count. Hence, the appeals are allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,07,000/- in each appeal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @7% per annum. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal shall apply as regards the enhanced amount also. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14th SEPTEMBER, 2009. kvni