IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1296 of 2006 Between: Kalva Pedda Subbaiah & others … Appellants And: V.R.Prasada Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1296 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.03.2006 in OP No.435 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein, the said claim application ﬁled by the appellants herein under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The claimants ﬁled claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Kalva Nagarjuna, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.01.2003. The ﬁrst claimant is the father, claimants 2 and 3 are sisters and 4th petitioner is the brother of the deceased Nagarjuna. According to the claimants on that day, the deceased was returning to Kadapa in a jeep bearing No.AP 04 U 385 belonging to the ﬁrst respondent and at about 8.15 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, who tried to over take a lorry and RTC bus, dashed against RTC bus, resulting in the death of the deceased. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 21 years and was working as cleaner of lorry bearing No.APA 5045 and was getting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.50/- per day and he was also getting 1% of hired charges. 4. The ﬁrst respondent-owner of the jeep remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. 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 jeep by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Accordingly, award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisﬁed with the said award, the present appeal is ﬁled by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the though the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, but erred in taking only 1/3rd income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per annum towards contribution to the family. Though the claimants stated that the deceased was working as cleaner and getting Rs.2000/- per month besides Rs.50/- per day as batta and also 1% of hired charges, however, the employer of the deceased has not been examined to show that the deceased was earning the above said income. In the absence of the evidence of the employer, the Tribunal has estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum, which is considered to be reasonable. As the deceased was unmarried, as per the latest decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum. As the deceased was unmarried and his mother is stated to be no more, the age of the ﬁrst claimant, who lis father of the deceased is to be taken into consideration. The ﬁrst claimant is stated to be aged 40 years. As per the above decision, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 15). The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.11.2011 bss