THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2726 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 22.12.2004, passed in O.P.No.413 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellants-claimants 1 to 3 are the father, mother and sister of one Mohd. Asif, who succumbed to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.02.2003 at Chowtkur bus stop, due to dashing of his auto by a lorry bearing No.GJ-11-U-9832 on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased was aged 23 years and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month as auto Mechanic at the time of the accident. The claimants filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-payable by respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the lorry. The first respondent did not file counter. The second respondent filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. By the order impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,38,700/-to the claimants. Disputing the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken meager amount of Rs.18,000/-per year as notional income of the deceased and thereby granted less compensation to the claimants and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation. 4. P.W.1, the father of the deceased, stated that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month as auto Mechanic at the time of accident and contributing all his earnings to the family. He further stated that the deceased was unmarried and due to his sudden death, the entire family members were deprived of his earnings. Since the accident occurred in 2003, the deceased might have earned at least Rs.2,000/-per month. Therefore, it would be appropriate to assess his monthly income at the rate of Rs.2,000/-. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the monthly income should be deducted towards his personal expenses, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and thereby it comes to Rs.1,000/- per month and annual income at Rs.12,000/-. In this case, the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 23 years as on the date of accident, the age of his mother i.e., 50 years should be taken into account and the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA’s case (cited 1 supra), is ‘13’. Then the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,000X13=1,56,000/- Further, an amount of Rs.10,000/-is also awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection and thus, in total, an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- is awarded as compensation to the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,38,700/- to Rs.1,76,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:26.08.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121