THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3428 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the orders in M.V.O.P.No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Guntur dated: 17.3.2003, the present appeal is filed urging that the compensation awarded by the lower Court is very meager and that the lower Court ought to have fixed the income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages Act for drivers and that the lower Court ought to have applied multiplier 16 instead of 12 for assessing the compensation and placed reliance on a decision reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORTCORPORATION AND OTHERS[1]. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? M.V.O.P.No. 2 of 1999 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Sivannarayana. On 22.9.1998 the deceased Sivannarayana while proceeding on a lorry bearing NO. AP-16T- 4473 as driver from Vizag to Bangalore, and when he reached near Vellampally Bridge, the driver-cum-cleaner of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the lorry turned turtle causing severe injuries to Sivannarayana and others. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur and died on 24.9.1998 while undergoing treatment and that the police registered a case against the driver-cum-cleaner of the said lorry. The recitals in the petition reads that the driver-cum-cleaner of the vehicle caused the accident while the deceased Sivannarayana, driver was in the cabin of the lorry. The police filed charge sheet. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents Exs.A-1 to A-4, the tribunal below held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. During the course of arguments before this Court, the counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident and the lower Court failed to give finding on this aspect. When confronted whether the insurance company preferred any cross appeal, he fairly conceded that no cross appeal was filed against the finding of the learned tribunal below. Pursuant to his submissions, it cannot be now said that the finding of the lower Court fixing the liability on Insurance company is erroneous, muchless, non-filing of any cross appeal. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimants needs no interference. With regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner, the age of the deceased Sivannarayana is shown as 34 years in the petition, whereas P.W-1, the wife of the deceased deposed that the age of the deceased was 35 years on the date of the accident. As per the inquest report Ex.A-2 and charge sheet Ex.A-4, the age of the deceased was noted as 35 years. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the age of the deceased can be safely held as 35 years as on the date of the accident. According to the evidence of P.W-1 her husband used to give her a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month and also Rs.1,000/- towards batta. P.W-2 the colleague of the deceased also deposed that the deceased was a lorry driver and he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- as salary and Rs. 1,000/- towards batta. All the documents Exs.A- 1 to A-5 clearly shows that the deceased was a driver of the lorry having valid driving license. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-5, the minimum wages fixed for the driver under the Minimum Wages Act is just and reasonable. The counsel for the appellant state that the minimum wage of the driver under the Act is Rs. 2,000/- per month. These petitioners are the dependants of the deceased. It is fixed that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- as on the date of the accident. While applying the principles as per the decision in Sarla Varma’s case(1st cited supra), 1/5th to be deducted towards the personal expenses and family. Therefore, contribution of the deceased is taken as Rs. 1,600/-(Rs. 2,000/- - 400 (1/5th of 2,000)= 1600) per month and therefore his contribution per annum is Rs. 19,200/- towards his family. To arrive at a total loss of dependency Rs. 19,200/- per annum is to be multiplied with 16, which multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased at the time of death followed by the decision reported in Sarla Varma’s case(1st cited supra).By doing so, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,07,200/- (Rs. 19,200/- x 16). The lower Court awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of her estate. The claim of the petition before the lower Court is Rs. 3,00,000/-. In view of my aforesaid observations cited supra, the amount of compensation awarded is restricted to the total claim of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners in the lower Court. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 9.3.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121