HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3290 of 2004 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: 1. Mohd. Ismail 2. Smt. Pasha Begum .. Appellants And 1. S.V.Nageswara Rao 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the appellants- claimants challenging the order, dated 24.05.1999 passed in O.P.No.233 of 1996 whereby the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Sarrornagar, granted compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimants together with interest at 12% per annum and proportionate costs from the date of filing the petition till realization, against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that they are the parents of the deceased-Shabana Sultana. On 20.03.1996, at about 11:45 p.m., while the deceased and her brother Mohd. Adil were proceeding to Chandanagar to purchase medicines and when they reached a bridge near B.H.E.L. Cross Roads, one Lorry bearing No. AP 36T 6597, came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against Shabana Sulthana, who died on the spot. On receipt of the complaint, the police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.62 of 1996. The deceased, who was doing tailoring and embroidery business, was contributing her entire income to the maintenance of the family. Hence, they filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that the accident might have occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased-Shabana Sulthana. It is further stated that the vehicle, alleged to have caused the accident, was insured with the 2nd respondent-company at the time of the accident and the claim is excessive. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: (i) Whether the deceased-Shabana Sultana died in an accident occurred on 20.03.1996 at about 11:45 p.m. near a bridge, one furlong towards East from P.S., due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 36T 6597? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount? In order to substantiate their case, the 1st petitioner got himself examined as PW1 besides examining another witness as PW2 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence is adduced, however the policy filed by the 2nd respondent was marked as Ex.B1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that though the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month by doing embroidery and tailoring business, the Tribunal apparently erred in granting meager compensation. It also failed to grant any amount towards loss of estate, and the expenses granted towards funeral expenses are quite low. Hence, it is prayed that the compensation granted by the Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. The learned Standing Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company appearing for the 2nd respondent has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the impugned ordered need not be interfered with. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under appeal. From a careful analysis of the material placed on record, it is obvious that there is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident which resulted in death of the deceased. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same does not appear to be just and reasonable. Considering the nature of business i.e. embroidery and tailoring which the deceased used to do in order to support her family, this Court is inclined to fix her monthly income reasonably at Rs.1500/- per month in view of the fact that there cannot be any documentary evidence to establish that the deceased was doing embroidery and tailoring work, and the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased as per Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of India[1] is “14”. If one-thirds is deducted from her monthly earnings towards her personal expenditure, it comes to Rs.1,000/- per month. Therefore, Rs.1,000/- x 12 = Rs.12,000/- per annum x 14 = Rs.1,68,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral and transportation charges, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted to them towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,83,000/-. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 24.05.1999, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj [1] 2009(6) SCC 121