IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.302 of 2004 Between: Adepu Kousalya and others ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Ahemed Majam and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.302 of 2004 ORDER: Appellants, who are wife, children and parents of Adepu Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’), filed claim petition in O.P.No.344 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 12.03.2000 while the deceased along with his younger brother and cousin brother was returning to Sircilla from Peddur village by a Maruthi Car bearing No.DAV-4292 and when they reached Vardhannakunta village, at about 07.30 p.m., a bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-2497, belonging to the second respondent, being driven by the first respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Maruthi car, resulting bleeding injuries to the deceased. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sircilla, where he succumbed to death while undergoing treatment. The appellants claim that the deceased was aged 38 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. First respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident was caused by the 1st respondent/driving by his vehicle bearing No.AP-10-Z-2497? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent, awarded Rs.1,61,400/- payable by the second respondent with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as compensation to appellant Nos.1 to 5 for the death of the deceased in the accident. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the present appeal is by the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellants are entitled to and there is no need to enhance the same. Now the point for consideration is to what compensation the appellants are entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal, by relying on BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1], awarded Rs.1,27,900/- towards loss of future contributory income to the family; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation; making a total of Rs.1,61,400/-. Though it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing business, the Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- which, in my considered opinion, is much lesser. So, I take the annual income of the appellant at Rs.42,000/- and since there were five dependants in the family of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], one-fourth of the earnings is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.42,000/- x 1/4 = Rs.31,500/-. The appropriate multiplier as per SARLA VERMA case (2 supra) for the age of 38 years is ‘15’. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.31,500/- x 15 = Rs.31,500/- x 15 = Rs.4,72,500/-. I am not inclined to interfere with the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the same shall remain unaltered. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.4,72,500/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses + Rs.1,000/- towards transportation; making a total of Rs.5,06,000/-. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest on the enhanced sum shall be at the rate of 6% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.5,06,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the second respondent with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,61,400/-, awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till the date of realization and at 6% per annum on Rs.3,44,600/-, enhanced in this appeal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. From out of the enhanced compensation, first appellant shall be entitled to Rs.1,04,600/- and interest thereon and each of appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to Rs.60,000/- and interest thereon. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 12th August 2010 CVRK [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104