THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2516 OF 2008 & CROSS OBJECTIONS No.40605 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 16.10.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.650 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Asifabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 6- cross- objectors was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 6 filed the claim application under Sections 166 (i) (a) and 163 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Syed Baba @ Munna, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.05.2002. According to the claimants, on that day, when the deceased was walking along the left side of the road, a lorry bearing No.ABT-1736, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from behind and dashed against the deceased resulting in his death on the spot. The vehicle is owned by the appellants-State. Appellants herein filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced by the appellants. 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 lorry by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the award, the State-owner of the vehicle filed the appeal and the claimants filed the cross-objections, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and also the ownership of the vehicle with the appellants-State is not seriously challenged. The main contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 42 years though the age is mentioned as 56 years in the First Information Report, which was found corrected as 30 years. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants-cross objectors would, on the other hand, contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 30 years as found mentioned in the First Information Report and the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of Rs.1500/- per month into consideration though the evidence on record shows that the deceased was a fruit vendor. He would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, having regard to the number of the dependants left behind by the deceased. 8. The Tribunal noted that the age of the deceased was mentioned as 56 years and is found corrected as 30 years in Exs.A1 to A3-First Information Report; inquest report and postmortem certificate. It is not disputed that the 5th claimant-father of the deceased is aged 56 years and the 6th claimant is aged 50 years. The mentioning of age of the deceased as 56 years is obviously a mistake. The contention of the appellants-State that the age of the deceased ought to have been taken as 56 years, as originally mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3, does not merit any consideration. The Tribunal has not ascertained the correct age of the deceased, however taken the same as 42 years. In view of the fact that the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years in Exs.A1 to A3, which are the criminal Court records, and the appellants-State not having adduced any evidence to the contra, the Tribunal ought to have taken the said age mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3. In the absence of any other evidence to the contra, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age as mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3 instead of indulging in any guess work and taking the notional age of 42 years into consideration, for which there is no basis. The appropriate multiplier for the age of 30 years as per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION’ [1] is ‘17’. 9. Though the claimants contended that the deceased was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.,3000/- per month, they have not adduced any evidence to show the income earned by the deceased from the said business. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs.1500/- per month into consideration, which is considered to be reasonable for a fruit vendor. As per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA’s case (1st cited supra), as the number of dependants left behind by the deceased are 6, only 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The contribution of the deceased to the family therefore comes to Rs.13,500/- and applying the multiplier ‘17’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,29,500/-. Claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant is entitled for Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. Claimants are therefore entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,39,000/-. Claimants are also entitled for interest @ 7.5% on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal is dismissed and the cross- objections are allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th September, 2011 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298