IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.41507 of 2006 IN M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 Between: P. Swaroopa & 2 others .. Cross Objectors/Respondents AND The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musherabad, Hyderabad. .. Appellant/Petitioner The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.41507 of 2006 IN M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors and Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant corporation. 2. The appeal filed by the appellant corporation in M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 was dismissed without costs vide the common judgment of this Court, dated 08.12.2010, but the Cross Objections were not adjudicated along with the appeal and, hence, have come up for hearing today before the Court. 3. The cross objectors contended that the Tribunal should have taken the probable income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, the deceased being an active agriculturist at the age of 30 years and, therefore, desired the balance compensation also be awarded to them as claimed. 4. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,93,000/- to the claimants as against their claim for Rs.4,50,000/- and even while dismissing the appeal filed by the corporation, this Court observed that the income assessed by the Tribunal should have been much more with reference to even the minimum wages in vogue under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. When even a non-earning person is assessed to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is absolutely no justification for considering the able-bodied deceased at the prime age of 30 years to be not striving to earn sufficiently for a decent maintenance of himself, his wife, a minor daughter and a minor son. Even if the minimum wages payable at the relevant time were to be taken as the basis and the claims of the claimants about the deceased being an agriculturist being not controverted by any evidence for the corporation, assessing the deceased to be earning about Rs.2,000/- per month from agriculture will not be an over estimate. It is of course, true that an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable in such an assessment, but the ordinary and natural course of human events alone forms the guide. If so, on an annual probable income of Rs.24,000/- multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 17 and after making a deduction of 1/3rd of the same towards the expenses which the deceased should have incurred had he been alive, the contribution to the family would approximately have been Rs.2,72,000/-. The Tribunal had already granted Rs.1,63,200/- under this head and taking into account that the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium as against Rs.20,000/- that would have been granted in accordance with SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] rounding off the enhancement to Rs.1,00,000/- towards the deficiency in loss of dependency not awarded by the Tribunal will be granting just and adequate compensation to the claimants. 5. On the enhanced portion of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, interest should be confined to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which the corporation has to pay such interest, while proportionate costs of course, should follow suit. 6. In the result, the award, dated 16.11.2004, in O.P.No.816 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The enhanced compensation shall also be shared in the same proportion between the claimants as ordered in the original award and no further directions are being given concerning the disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. 7. The Cross Objections are allowed in part, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.41507 of 2006 IN M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 Date: 21st January, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298