IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.5551 of 2008 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager, Secunderabad … Appellant And: D.Venkata Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.5551 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2008 in OP No.726 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum 15th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.06.1999. The first claimant is the husband, 2nd claimant is the daughter and 3rd claimant is the son of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was travelling in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 10 J 4149 and on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, the vehicle dashed against RTC bus which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Police registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 1999 against the driver of the Tata sumo. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing tailoring and embroidery work. 4. The 4th respondent herein-owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, the claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd there of towards personal expenses. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, without there being any evidence in support thereof. 6. According to the claimants the deceased was doing tailoring and embroidery work, but they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the said plea. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month from tailoring and embroidery work. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the Tribunal however has taken Rs.2000/- per month as contribution of the deceased to the family. It is to be noted that the deceased was admittedly a house-wife. Even though the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was earning any income from the embroidery or tailoring work, the fact remains that the deceased was rendering service to the family as a house wife and on account of her sudden death, the claimants have been deprived of the value of the services of the deceased. The 2nd claimant- daughter was aged only 19 years and 3rd claimant-son was aged 16 years at the time of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants would certainly be deprived of the valuable domestic help of the deceased when it was needed. Under those circumstances and having regard to the age of the deceased, who was admittedly 34 years, and that she was hale and healthy and was rendering substantial services to the family as a house wife, the amount of Rs.2000/- per month taken in to consideration by the Tribunal can be treated as value of the services of the deceased, though not the income of the deceased. The question of making any deduction towards personal expenses there from does not arise, as the said amount is not taken as income, but is only value of the services of the deceased, which the claimants are now deprived. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 34 years is ‘16’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works to Rs.3,84,000/-[ Rs.2000/- x 12 x 16]. The first claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,93,500/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.06.2011 bss