HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 2553 of 2004 Date: 29-10-2010 Between Varikoti Sarojini and others ……….. Appellants and A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its General Manager and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 2553 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award, dated 12-11-1997 passed in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) at Warangal. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased by name Varikoti Kistaiah. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-1995 at about 08-00 AM, while the deceased was going on his bicycle with milk cans at Hanamkonda, the APSRTC bus dashed his bicycle due to which he fell down and died instantaneously. The deceased was aged about 45 years. He owned Ac.17-20 guntas of land and was raising commercial crops. He was getting agricultural income of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. He was doing milk vending business and had 12 milk yielding buffaloes and six cows apart from 50 other animals. He was earning Rs.80,000/- to Rs.85,000/- from milk vending business. Therefore, the appellants-claimants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations in the petition contending that the deceased was carrying big milk cans on the bicycle and he was unable to control the bicycle, on account of which the accident had taken place and the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. 4. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and/or negligent driving by the driver of vehicle No.AP-9-Z-8161? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- if so from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW-1 and another person was examined as PW-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-32 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1, however, no documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants- claimants preferred the present Appeal. 7. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased and the petitioner being entitled for compensation. 8. The only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal observed that in 1995, during which the accident occurred, the minimum wage of a labourer would be Rs.20/- per day and by including supervisory charges, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.30/- per day, which comes to Rs.900/- per month, and deducted 1/3rd out of the same and applied multiplier 11.5 and, accordingly, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.82,800/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first appellant-claimant and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was doing milk vending business and he was having cattle, apart from agricultural land. Such being the case, there is no justification in treating the deceased as a labourer earning Rs.20/- or Rs.30/- per day. Even at the time of accident, according to the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the deceased was carrying two big cans on his bicycle. Thus there cannot be any dispute about his being a milk vendor. Thus he must have been getting sufficient income on his milk business and that too from his own cattle. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30/- per day is grossly inadequate. 10. Therefore, I am inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and as the dependants are more than four, only 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thus his contribution to the family members comes to Rs.45/- per day, which is Rs.1,350/- per month and Rs.16,200/- per annum. If multiplier 11.5 is applied to the annual loss of dependency, the total compensation, to which the appellants-claimants are entitled to, comes to Rs.1,86,300/-. The appellants-claimants are also entitled for the compensation under the other heads i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are awarded Rs.2,11,300/-. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,11,300/-. The appellants-claimants are entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the enhanced amount. The apportionment and the withdrawals shall be in the ratio ordered by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 29-09-2010 YCR