THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 658 of 2006 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against their claim for compensation at Rs.15,00,000/- contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and requires to be enhanced. On 21.01.2002, at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased Kosuri Srinivas Rao and one B. Venkateswarlu were coming in their car bearing No. AP 7W 3879, they met with an accident when an oncoming bus bearing No. AP 10Z 2391 belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. In the accident, the deceased died instantly, while B. Venkateswarlu sustained injuries. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants, who are his wife and two children and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are his parents, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- stating that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged about 33 years. That he was Proprietor of Satya Sai Timber, partner in Shirdi Sai Prathi Sai Glass and Plywoods and also looking after the entire business of his father and is also Managing Partner in Venkata Satya Sai Saw Mill, was getting Rs.50,000/- per month. This apart, he was also elected as MPTC Member. Respondent No.1-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments made by the appellants-claimants in the claim petition stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and that the compensation claimed by the appellants- claimants is excessive. The appellants-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A1 to A16, while respondent No.1-claimant examined R.W.1 and marked no documents. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the deceased died occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. However, the Tribunal observed that there was no satisfactory evidence placed by the appellants regarding the income of the deceased, and observing so, took the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, and after deducting one-third towards his contribution to the family, applied the multiplier 17 and worked out the compensation to Rs.1,70,000/-, apart from awarding Rs.15,000/- to appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- to the appellants towards loss of estate. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellants-claimants. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-APSRTC and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3-father and mother of the deceased and perused the judgment under appeal. Though the appellants-claimants claimed that the deceased was Proprietor of Satya Sai Timber, Partner in Shirdi Sai Prathi Sai Glass and Plywoods, Managing Partner in Venkata Satya Sai Saw Mill and was looking after the entire business of his father and was also M.P.T.C. Member and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, and in support of their contention, relied on Exs. A7 to All-turnover assessment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Department for the years 2000-01 to 2002-03, the fact remains, P.W.4, the Deputy Commercial Officer, whom the appellants-claimants examined, in his evidence deposed that he cannot assess the income of the deceased based on the turnover of business, while the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. and 2 holding that their evidence is only hearsay and cannot be relied upon to ascertain the income of the deceased. In the absence of the appellants-claimants producing material to show as to what exactly the income of the deceased was, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and deducted one-third of the same towards his persona expenses and by applying the multiplier of 17 worked out the loss of compensation at Rs.1,70,000/-. Though the appellants-claimants could not prove as to what was the actual income earned by the deceased, the fact remains, respondent No.1-APSRTC does not dispute the fact that the deceased, as is evident from Exs. A7 to A11-assessment orders for the years 2000-01 to 2002-03, issued by the Commercial Tax Department, was doing several businesses, either on his own or as being partners therein. This apart, the deceased was an MPTC Member of Piduguralla. Given the nature of business the deceased was doing and the political activity in which he is involved, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the fact that now a days, even a labour is earning Rs.200/- per day, and even though the appellants-claimants did not produce satisfactory material to prove as to what exactly his income was, and considering the turnover of the businesses, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum, we deduct one-third of the same towards his personal expenses, and upon such deduction, his annual contribution to the family would come to Rs.40,000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased at the time of his accident was 33 years, the relevant multiplier that is applicable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is 16. By application of the multiplier 16, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 6,40,000/-. Further, appellant No.1-claimant, as awarded by the Tribunal is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus the appellants-claimants in all are entitled to Rs. 6,70,000/- from respondent No.1-APSRTC along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 18th August, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121