THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1729 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard. The appeal is filed by the claimants in not satisfying with the order dated 05.08.2003 in O.P.No.360 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Dasthagiri, who is said to be an auto driver died in a motor accident on 07.11.2000. According to the case of the petitioners when the deceased was going in the auto near Amberpet bridge cross roads, the Maruti van bearing No.AHU 3177 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased received injuries and died. He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and contributing his earnings for the maintenance of the petitioners. He was aged about 30 years. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. jeep and the deceased were not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1 to A-7. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- and accordingly passed the order. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month though he was accepted to be an auto driver and incident has taken place in the year 2000 and, therefore, the minimum of income at Rs.3,000/- should have been taken by the lower Tribunal. However, the deceased was only aged about 30 years. There is no proof of his continuous earnings and also since how long he was employed as auto driver. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,500/-, annually it comes to Rs.30,000/- and if one-third is deducted towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.20,000/- per annum. The lower Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘18’ but in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the multiplier ‘17’ is applied and dependency comes to Rs.3,40,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to non-pecuniary damages at Rs.10,000/- and loss of consortium is fixed at Rs.15,000/- apart from the funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The total compensation, the petitioners are entitled is Rs.3,70,000/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy thousand only). With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 16-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1729 of 2011 DATE: 16-08-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121