THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 200 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants of the deceased filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award, dated 13.04.2005 passed in O.P.No.195 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’), for the death of one Kommula Narsimlu (herein after referred as ‘the deceased’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the said O.P. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.02.2001 at about 07.30 P.M, when the deceased was proceeding from Pothamshettypally village to Medak in an auto bearing registration No. AP 23 T 6243, a tractor – trailor bearing registration Nos. AP 23 T 2782 and 2783 respectively driven by the driver of the tractor-trailor which came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the auto. As a result, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injures and died on the spot. By the impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the said O.P awarding compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- against a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- made by the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/wife and daughter of the deceased, filed the present appeal. 4. It is the contention of the P.W-1-wife of the deceased that her husband was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by way of agricultural operations besides undertaking toddy business and receiving commission as TCS Member of Kulcharam Society. Further, the petitioners stated that due to the said accident they not only lost their head of their family but also the earning member. In support of their claim, the petitioners examined as PW-1 to P.W-3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6, hence claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. During the pendency of the case, as the 1st respondent-owner of the said crime vehicle died, the 3rd respondent-son of owner of the crime vehicle was added as a party to the petition. While the 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed its counter denying all the averments made by the petitioners and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the auto and also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed in the O.P by the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined and Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy was marked. 6. On such rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor bearing registration Nos.AP 23 T 2782 and 2783 which was also corroborated by P.W-3-co-passenger of the deceased in the crime vehicle, and awarded Rs.2,98,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants- appellants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. As seen from the record, Tribunal on evidence rightly held that due to rash and negligent of the driver of the tractor-trailor bearing registration Nos. AP 23 T 2782 and 2783, the accident occurred, due to which, the deceased died on the spot on 15.02.2001. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, according to PW-1-wife, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to accident and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by way of agricultural operations, undertaking toddy business and receiving commission as a TCS member of Kulcharam Society. Further no income and age proof of the deceased were produced, and it is also seen that the deceased did not possess any valid license from the Excise Department for carrying out toddy business. On evidence, Tribunal taken the age of the deceased at 28 years, and considering circumstances existed at the time of incident, ends of justice would be met if the earnings of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000/-x12months=Rs.36,000/-). Considering the facts of the case and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s Case, 1/3rd of the amount Rs.12,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 1/3 = Rs. 12,000/-) should be deducted from the annual income towards his personal expenses and the net amount comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/- = Rs. 24,000/-). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], as the age of the deceased is 28 years, the relevant multiplier for the age group of 26 years to 30 years is ‘17’ and if applied the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.24,000x17=Rs.4,08,000/- ). Apart from this, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, a total sum of Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Thousand Only) is awarded towards compensation to the appellants-claimants. 8. However, rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:31.03.2011 SP/KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A No. 200 of 2006 March 31, 2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129