THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 76 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the orders passed in O.P.No. 326 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda dated 30.7.2007, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal below. Appellants herein are the petitioners before the tribunal below. The petitioners 1 to 5 are the L.Rs. of the deceased Albert. The tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Being aggrieved with the said finding, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed for enhancement of compensation. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal below failed to consider Ex.A-10 driving license of the deceased while assessing the income of the deceased, even under the Minimum Wages Act. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation? The factum of accident is not disputed. P.W-1 the wife of the petitioner clearly asserted that her husband (deceased) was working as R.T..C. Driver was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased is having driving license, which is marked as Ex.A-10. The tribunal below assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month and awarded compensation. Admittedly, the deceased died on 22.2.2005 while undergoing treatment. As per inquest report, occupation of the deceased is mentioned as Retired R.T.C. Driver and his age is mentioned as 52 years. While taking into consideration the earlier occupation of the deceased under Ex.A-10, the driving license, the income of the deceased can safely be taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Here, the petitioners are four in number. Therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted by applying the principles laid down in SARLA VARMA(SMT.) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[1]. If 1/4th of income is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution comes to Rs. 2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. As I stated already, in the post mortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 52 years. Then the proper multiplier applicable is 11. Therefore, the total compensation to be awarded is Rs. 2,97,000/- (27,000 x 11). Accordingly, the said amount is awarded. The tribunal below rightly granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the hospital expenses while taking into consideration Exs.A-7 and A-8, which in my view is sustainable. Further, the tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 3,000/- towards the funeral expenses and the same are sustainable. Thus, in all the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. As seen from the impugned order, the tribunal below granted interest @ 7.5% per annum and the same is reduced to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation by relying on the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (1st cited supra). With this modification, the M.A. C.M.A. is allowed. ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 8.6.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121