IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: November 15, 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.No. 2373 of 2003 Between: G. Anasuya ..Appellant And Munwar Khan and another ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 2373 of 2003 Judgment This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the order passed in O.P.No.564 of 1998 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The claimant is the mother of the deceased, Raju. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are that on 8.4.1998 the son of the petitioner, Raju (the deceased herein) was proceeding on Scooter bearing No.ATU-2097 from Dulapally towards Bahadurpally and when they reached Mysammaguda turning at about 12. 15 PM, lorry bearing registration No.RJ-14-G-1956 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased died on the spot, he deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.2,000-00 per month. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent insurance company filed its counter denying the averments of the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal below framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether on account of the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry RJ-14-G-1956, the accident took place on 8.04.1998 at about 12.15 PM, in which the deceased, Raju died? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the respondents and if so for how much amount? iii) To what relief? 5. In support of her case, the petitioner examined PWs 1& 2 and got marked Exs A-1 to A-6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. Basing on the material on record, the lower tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,400-00. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded the petitioner preferred the present appeal. 6. While arriving at the compensation awarded, the tribunal below has taken the age of the mother of the deceased as 45 years and the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500-00 per month. No doubt, there is no authentic evidence with regard to the age of the mother. Her claim is that she was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. I am inclined to accept the age of the mother as “40” years. If that is so, the multiplier “15” would be applicable. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,500-00 per month i.e. Rs.18,000-00 per annum and 50% is deducted towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, the net contribution would comes to Rs.9,000-00 per annum and the compensation for which the petitioner would be entitled comes to Rs.1.35 Lakhs. As the deceased was 23 years old and the mother is “40” years, at least ¼ has to be added towards enhancement of future earnings of the deceased. In that event, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation of Rs.1.70 Lakhs. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1.70 Lakhs. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,43,400-00 to Rs.1,70,000-00. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount with proportionate costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:15—11—2010. *BVS