THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.453 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2765 of 2001 dated 13.10.2003. The appellants are the petitioners-claimants before the tribunal and they are the legal representatives of the deceased. Heard. According to the case of the petitioners, the deceased N.Sukumar was an auto driver and at the time of accident, he was driving the auto bearing No.AP-13V-8466, when it reached Gokul Wine shop, Chintalakunta on N.H.No.9, a lorry bearing No.AP-11T- 2314 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, on account of that the deceased died. A case in Cr.No.476 of 2001 under Section 304A and 337 IPC was registered by the police. The deceased was an autodriver. According to the claimants, he was earning Rs.3000/- per month and they claimed compensation of Rs.3.50 lakhs. The insurance company filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 17.10.2001 at about 23.30 hours due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 T 2314 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners being LRs of deceased are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- without applying any multiplier. Aggrieved by this quantum, the petitioners filed the present appeal. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the petitioners are entitled for higher compensation and the court below erred in not applying the appropriate multiplier. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? The deceased was an auto driver. There is no authentic evidence with regard to his income. The court below has estimated it at Rs.1,000/- a month. It is not clear on what basis the income is estimated as such. However, it has to be treated to be on lower side, as the auto driver cannot be expected to earn only Rs.30/- a day even in 2001. Hence, I am inclined to put it at a minimum of Rs.60/- a day in which event his monthly income comes to Rs.1800/- from out of that, if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses he being unmarried, Rs.900/- per month comes towards his contribution to the family, which comes to Rs.10,800/- per annum and on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased, which was around 45 years, if multiplier ‘14’ is applied, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,51,000/- towards loss of dependency. Another amount of Rs.15,000/- can be granted under other heads. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,55,000/- to Rs.1,66,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. No costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 23.11.2010 Rns