HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :1270 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.2006 in O.P. No.1767 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.5.2004, while the deceased- Mohan was going on his cycle towards Boggulkunta and when he reached near Sham Hotel, Chaderghat, a lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 1287 came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and he succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident. He was running an S.T.D. booth and was earning an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The appellants, who are the mother and younger sister of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- . The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent- insurance company filed its counter affidavit before the Court below wherein it denied the occurrence of the accident. It also denied that the driver of the lorry was having a valid licence. It also disputed the income of the deceased. It further pleaded that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place on 15.5.2004 at about 6.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 1287 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? Before the Court below, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, the mother of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1, besides examining an eye witness to the incident as P.W.2. Exs. A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the appellants-claimants. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced. However, Ex.B1, insurance policy was marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. However, while taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, by applying the multiplier of 8, it determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,53,600/-. In addition to this, the appellants were also granted a amount of Rs. 2,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,55,600/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants contended that even though the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month, the Court below has only taken Rs.2,400/-as his income. He further stated that the Court below did not award any amount towards loss of estate, funeral expenses. He further contended that the Court below also did not apply proper multiplier while determining the compensation amount. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, supported the impugned Award of the Court below and stated that the Court below while taking into account the age and earnings of the deceased, has rightly applied multiplier ‘8’ and awarded the compensation and the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1s t appellant, who is the mother of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. She deposed in her evidence that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 15.5.2004. P.W.2, who was an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence that on the date of the accident when he was going on his cycle, the deceased was hit by a lorry and immediately he was shifted to Osmonia General Hospital. The appellants also filed Exs. A1 to A4 to prove that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 15.5.2004. However, no oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents to disprove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.2 and Exs. A1 to A4, disbelieved the said plea and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent alone. In so far as income of the deceased is concerned, according to the appellants-claimants, the deceased was running an STD booth and was earning about Rs.4,000/- per month. Since there is no evidence to show that he was getting that much income, I feel it appropriate to take the notional income at Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- annually and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family is assessed at Rs. 24,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, since the mother of the deceased was 52 years, while following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON & OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the deceased would be 11 and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.24,000 x 11). It is seen from the record that out of the total compensation amount of Rs.1,55,600/- the Court below apportioned a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 1st appellant and the remaining amount towards the 2nd appellant. However, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case cited supra, the mother alone can be considered as dependant of the deceased and the sister cannot be considered as a dependant. Hence, the 2nd appellant would not be entitled for any amount as apportioned by the Court below. In addition to this, the 1st appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. She is also entitled to an amount of Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the Court below. In all, the 1st appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,55,600/- as awarded by the Court below. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 30th March, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129