TH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4622 of 2003 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4622 of 2003 Judgment : 1) The claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in OP NO.1023 of 2001 in its order dated 24-7-2003 for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23-3-2001. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 23-2- 2001 at about 3.30 p.m. near Dharmojigudem village on National High Way No.9, when the deceased was driving the scooter bearing No. AP 22D 68 and Mr. Satyanarayana Swamy was travelling as pillion rider, one tipper lorry bearing No.AP 28T 6538 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter of the deceased, due to which the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and received serious injuries and that the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month, therefore the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased. 3) Before the Tribunal 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition. 4) The Tribunal framed the following issued on the basis of the pleadings. a) whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 ? b) whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation / if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? c) to what relief ? 5) As the claimants claimed that the offending vehicle belonging to the respondents 1 and 2, the first issue was redrafted as follows : “ Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle belonging to the 1st and 2nd respondents ? 6) On behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked, on behalf of the 3rd respondent Ex.B.1 was marked. 7) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the death of the deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.4,02,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 8) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the record. 9) In the instant case, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the claimants including of eye witness and pillion rider of the scooter, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondents therein, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. According to the claimants, the deceased was doing the work of building construction material supplier and also used to hire his tractor for various purposes and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month, apart from having agricultural land. The claimants by producing Ex.A.8, A.12 and A.13 stated that the deceased owned agricultural land of 15 acres as well as tractor and tailor, in the circumstances the loss of contribution can be safely fixed at Rs.3500/- per month and if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, as deceased was having four dependents, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.31,500/- per annum and by applying the multiplier 15 for the age of 40 as per Ex.A.4, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPOR CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), the total loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,72,500/-. Added to that an amount of RS.10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate, and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.5,000/- each for appellants towards loss of love and affection. In all the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,07,500/- as compensation. 10)Subject to above, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,07,500/- with proportionate interest and costs as granted by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation subject to payment of additional court fee on the enhanced amount as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH ( 2002 (8) SUPREME 497). No costs. GM, J Dt; 15-7-2010 kk TH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4622 of 2003 15-7-2010