IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1318 of 2003 Between: Donga Dhanalaxmi and other .. Appellant AND K. Sudhakar and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in OP.No.1550 of 2001, dated 31-08-2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda passed in pursuance of the common order in O.P.No.1549 of 2001 and batch. Tourist bus No.AP-11-U-4560 driven rashly and negligently by its driver on 2-12-2001 dashed against a stationed lorry near Tekumatla village resulting in the death of Donga Ramakrishna and others due to the injuries received in the accident. The mother and sister of Ramakrishna claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tourist bus claiming Ramakrishna aged 22 years to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a cleaner in the same tourist bus. The owner of the tourist bus remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer filed a common counter in the batch of claims arising out of the same accident putting the claimants to strict proof of their allegations and contending the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed identical issues in all the claims about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and conducted a joint enquiry in the five claims arising out of the same accident. It examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 during the enquiry. It rendered the impugned common order firstly accepting the evidence of PW.4, who was also travelling in the tourist bus whose claims were corroborated by the contents of Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.3-Charge sheet and it concluded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tourist bus. In assessing the compensation, in the absence of any definite evidence for the claimants about the income of the deceased, the Tribunal presumed the monthly earnings of the cleaner to be Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- and the contribution of the deceased to the family to be Rs.500/- per month. Considering that the age of the mother should be in tune with the age of the deceased shown as 25 years at the time of Post Mortem examination, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 and in addition to the loss of dependency so calculated at Rs.66,000/-, it also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages making a total compensation of Rs.81,000/-. The Tribunal directed apportionment of the compensation and also the compensation to carry interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The claimants were aggrieved by the said award and contended that there was no reason to deny the deceased to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month spending the income for the benefit of the family and even the multiplier adopted or the interest granted were incorrect. Heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, while none entered appearance for the 1st respondent-owner of the tourist bus before this Court. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the tourist bus by its driver being the cause for the accident was not challenged by any party to the common order and it has become final. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent not being in dispute and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased not being in question, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate both the claimants cannot be in doubt. The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Though it is true that there was no documentary or other independent evidence to corroborate the claims of PW.3 about the probable income of the deceased as a cleaner, there appeared no rational or scientific basis for the Tribunal in presuming the deceased to have earned only Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- per month at the relevant time. The minimum wages payable either to an unskilled labourer or to transport workers at about the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act could not have been less than about Rs.1800/- per month and the real wages being paid to such workers would have been a little higher and not less. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence, at least the minimum wages payable under the statute should have been taken as the guide for assessing the compensation and if so, the loss of contribution to the mother and the sister could have been taken as about Rs.1200/- per month. Even if the mother were to be assumed to be aged about 50 years as presumed by the Tribunal with reference to the age of the deceased mentioned in the Post Mortem Certificate, the appropriate multiplier would be 13 according to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and the total loss of dependency would come to about Rs.1,87,200/-. In addition, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and the total compensation of Rs.1,97,200/- arrived at in approximation can be rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/-. Coming to the payment of interest on the quantum of compensation, in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, the same can be limited to 6% p.a., while costs, of course, shall follow suit. Accordingly, the impugned award has to be interfered with and hence, the award in O.P.No.1550 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 31-08-2002 is modified by granting a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to both the claimants with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and costs against both the respondents jointly and severally and the 1st claimant shall be entitled to 3/4th and the 2nd claimant shall be entitled to 1/4th of the compensation so awarded and the appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298