HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1670 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.125 of 1999 dated 20-09-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby Rs.3,29,500/- was awarded to the claimants towards compensation as against their claim of Rs.6,72,436/-. 2. Appellants are claimants, who are wife and daughters of the deceased, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 08-05-1998 at about 10-45 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on his cycle for attending his duties in Godavarikhani-11-A Incline and when he reached near 6-Incline bus shelter, Godavarikhani, lorry bearing No.ADM – 6294, belonging to respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against the deceased killing him on the spot. A case in Crime No.49 of 1998 was registered against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was 34 years old as on the date of his death and was getting a salary of Rs.5,180-76 paise per month by working as Hauller Operator in Singareni Collieries, Godavarikhani. Hence, claimants, who are wife and three unmarried daughters of the deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs.6,72,436/- under various heads. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner, respectively, of the lorry and respondent Nos.4 and 5, parents of the deceased, also remained ex parte. (c) Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.ADM – 6294 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and form whom ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To substantiate its case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1, insurance policy, was marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,29,500/- as against the claim of Rs.6,72,436/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 8. Heard Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company – respondent No.3, and perused the material on record. 9. There is no dispute about the accident in question and there is also no dispute about the age of the deceased being 43 years, though the claimants claimed that he was 34 years old as on the date of his death. There is also no dispute about the salary of the deceased being Rs.5,180-76 paise per month. Based on the above material, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,29,500/- with interest at 9% per annum to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.6,72,436/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 10. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that even if salary of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,180-76 paise per month, Tribunal ought to have added at least 1/4th of his monthly income towards enhancement of future earnings and only 1/4th of the amount ought to have been deducted out of the total earnings towards personal expenses of the deceased, as there are more than four dependants, but not 1/3rd as deducted by it and compensation ought to have been computed by applying multiplier 14, even if it is treated that deceased was 43 years old as on the date of his death. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inappropriate ? 12. As already referred, there is no dispute about the age of the deceased being taken as 43 years and there is absolutely no dispute about the salary of the deceased being Rs.5,180-76 paise per month and his working in a regular Government Undertaking. Therefore, 1/4th of the amount, out of the actual monthly income, has to be added towards enhancement of future earnings and only 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted from the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, as there are more than four dependants. 13. Accordingly, if 1/4th (Rs.5,180/- x ¼ = Rs.1,295/-) of the amount is added to the monthly income (Rs.5,180/-) of the deceased, it comes to Rs.6,475/- (Rs.5,180 + Rs.1,295/-) per month. Out of which, if 1/4th amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.4,856/- (Rs.6,475/- x ¼) per month and Rs.58,275/- per annum and if the same is capitalized with multiplier 14 treating the deceased as 43 years old, it comes to Rs.8,15,850/- towards loss of dependency alone, which is more than the amount claimed. 14. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of their total claim of Rs.6,72,436/-. However, the enhanced compensation shall bear interest at 6% per annum only from the date of petition. The apportionment of compensation shall be in the same ratio as fixed by the Tribunal. 15. Further, it is directed that the entire amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank and the claimants shall be paid accrued interest thereon every month. They can withdraw 50% of the principal amount only after two years from today and the remaining 50% one year thereafter. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 6, 2010. PV