HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3647 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 440 of 1997 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of one China Apparao @ Apparao in a motor accident that occurred on 23.10.1996 when the deceased along with others was proceeding from Eluru to Vijayawada side on a jeep bearing No. AAK 3543 belonging to the 4th respondent and when the jeep reached near Veleru cross road, a lorry belonging to the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the jeep. Due to which, the deceased and other persons died on the spot. Respondents 1 being driver of the lorry, respondent No. 2 being owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 11T 7727 and respondent No. 4 being owner of the Jeep bearing No. AAK 3543 remained ex parte. Third respondent-United India Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 11T 7727 belonging to the first respondent by not accepting the argument of the third respondent-United India Insurance Company that the accident was occurred due to collision between jeep and lorry. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the evidence of documents viz., Exs A1 to A3 and also Ex. B1, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erroneously awarded a meager sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, towards total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- and also erroneously taken the notional income as 15,000/- without appreciating the fact that the minimum wages for a heavy vehicle driver is Rs. 3,271/- per annum. He also contended that the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from various infirmities and the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 11T 7727 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died on the spot. PW-2 is an eye witness, who traveled in the same jeep along with the deceased, stated that the lorry came in a high speed in an opposite direction dashed against the jeep. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who stated that her husband was aged 35 years and his income was Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000 per month and according to her the deceased was driver-cum –owner of a lorry and Ex. A3 is the driving licence in favour of the deceased. As there was no other document showing the income of the deceased, notinal income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was taken by the Tribunal. Even if minimum wages are taken into consideration, the wage of the deceased is Rs. 3,000/- per month. Hence, the ends of justice would meet if Rs. 2,000/- per month taken as the wages of the deceased. The net income of the deceased per annum comes to Rs 24,000/- (2000x12=24,000). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 , 1/4th where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependant family members exceed six. In this particular case, the number of dependent family is 5, hence, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. If deducted the amount of contribution towards family comes to Rs. 18,000/- (Rs.24,000x1/4=6000- 24,000=18,000). As per the evidence of PW-1 the age of the deceased was 35 years and for the age of 35 years the relevant multiplier is 16 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR (supra-1) and if applied the correct multiplier the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 2,88,000/- (18,000x16=2,88,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium totaling to Rs. 3,08,000/-. 6. As far as the claim against R4, owner of the jeep bearing No. AAK 3543 and R5-insurer of the jeep, Oriental Insurance company is concerned, the same is dismissed. 7. The Supreme Court in NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[2] held as under ; “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’.ss Hence, claims Tribunal is appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a just compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/- under all the heads, as stated above. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/-. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned among the claimants as fixed by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs.1,35,000/, the claimants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 2003 SC 674