IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2930 OF 1998 Date:20.11.2009. Between:- Ch.Prabhakar Raju and another ..Appellants/Petitioners And Praveen Jain and another .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.1998 passed in O.P.No.1624 of 1995 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge – cum – City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. Heard appellant No.1, who appeared in person. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. The appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- on account of the death of their deceased son-Gangasagar Raju, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.12.1995. The appellants are the parents of the deceased. According to them, the deceased and one Ravinder Reddy were going on scooter, which was driven by Ravinder Reddy from Moosarambagh towards Amberpet. When the scooter reached Siripuram colony bus stage, one Ambassador car bearing No.AP 9D 6617 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, the deceased Gangasagar Raju and Ravinder Reddy died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.207 of 1995 was registered against the driver of the Ambassador Car by Malakpet Police Station. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 17 years and was studying Intermediate Second Year in Ideal Junior College, Dilsukhnagar and was also working part time in Bharath Khadi, Lakdikapool earning Rs.1,000/- per month. The respondents filed counters opposing the claim denying their liability to pay compensation and contending that the deceased and driver of the scooter were negligent in driving the scooter. In support of their claim, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 17 were marked by the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassdor Car by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Not satisfied with the Award, the claimants filed the present appeal. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 17 years by the date of accident and that he was a student. According to P.W.1, his son-the deceased was doing part time job in the shop of Bharath Khadi, Lakdikapool. P.W.3, who is a co-employee of the deceased, also testified about the same. However, he has not produced any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- p.m. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation as a lumpsum amount without making any assessment of loss of dependency. As the deceased was only a student and there being no evidence to show his income from the part time job, it is just and proper to take a notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. into consideration for estimating the loss of dependency. As the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are parents of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the appellants, even after he gets married, normally gets reduced. It is, however, appropriate to estimate the contribution of the deceased to the parents at 50% of the income which comes to Rs.7,500/- p.a. Applying the multiplier of ‘13’ as per the Second Schedule of the M.V.Act, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.97,500/-. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount awarded is, accordingly, modified enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest on the enhanced amount at 9% p.a. from today. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 20th November, 2009 AMD