IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH (13TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.664 of 2009 Between: Golusula Narsaiah & another …Appellants And: V Lingaiah & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.664 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2008 in OP No.1100 of 2007 on the file of the MACT cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellants/petitioners was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,11,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their son G Veeraiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.04.2007. According to the claimants on that day, the deceased was returning from the house of Shaik Hassan Bee at Kasanagodu village and that a tractor-trailer bearing No.AP 20 U 5411/5412 driven in a rash and negligent manner came behind and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The police Kethepally registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 2007. According to the claimants, who are the parents, the deceased was aged 24 years and was unmarried and was working as maistry, earning Rs.5000/- per month. 4. The owner of the vehicle and insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. The Tribunal framed the follows issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place on 11.04.2007 at about 10:00 hours, due to the rash and negligent driving of the ‘Tractor/Trailer’ bearing No.AP 20 U 5411/5412, by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. During the trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The 2nd respondent examined its employee as RW.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 policy. 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 tractor-trailer by its driver. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,11,500/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the appellants is that when the evidence on record shows that the mother of the deceased i.e., 2nd petitioner was aged 50 years, the Tribunal erred in taking her age as 50+ and applying the multiplier ‘11’ instead of ‘13’. He would further contend that the Tribunal eared in apportioning the awarded amount in to three equal shares and giving one share to the brother of the deceased, who is not a party to the proceedings and when the parents alone are the legal heirs of the deceased. 8. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as maistry and was earning Rs.5000/- per month, no evidence was adduced in support of the said claim and therefore, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum in to consideration as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.10,000/- per annum. It is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and therefore, the age of his mother is to be taken into consideration for estimating the loss of dependency. The 2nd petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, is admittedly aged 50 years. The Tribunal has however taken the age of the 2nd petitioner as 50+ without there being any basis for taking such a higher age into consideration. In the claim application, the age of the 2nd petitioner is mentioned as 50 years and the evidence on record also shows the same. When that is so, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the 2nd petitioner as 50 years and applied the suitable multiplier of ‘13’ as per Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6SCC 121]. Applying the multiplier 13, the loss of dependency works out Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 13). The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as per the II Schedule. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing, which are considered as reasonable. Thus the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal. 9. The apportionment of the amount in favour of the brother of the deceased, who is not a party to the proceedings and who is not the legal representative of the deceased is unsustainable. The petitioners, being the parents of the deceased and are the legal heirs of the deceased alone, are entitled for the said compensation equally. The said direction contained in the impugned award is accordingly set aside. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.06.2011 bss