IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4188 OF 2008 Between:- T.Siva Kameswari and others …Appellants A n d B.Madhava Rao and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4188 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-03-2006 in M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2003, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the tribunal’), wherein the claim of the appellants herein was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Mohan Babu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10-11-2003. The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, while the deceased was crossing the road at Ganapavaram centre on NH5 road, an auto bearing No.AP 16 W 2870, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.13 of 2003 was registered by Nadendla Police against the driver of the auto. It is pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged 41 years and was an Ex-serviceman and was drawing pension of Rs.1,627/- by the time of accident and he was working as employee in Balaji Security Services on a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. The first respondent-owner of the auto remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 16W 2870? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation obviously taking cue from the observation made in the impugned award that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/-, but the award was confined to the amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which is claimed. The claimants have filed MACMA.MP.No.6616 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to amend the claim application. The respondent-insurer filed counter opposing the proposed amendment. Having regard to the fact that the claimants are illiterate and they are seeking compensation invoking the provisions of a welfare legislation, it is considered that the claimants can be permitted to amend the claim as proposed. MACMA.MP is accordingly ordered. 8. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, is not challenged as no appeal is filed by the insurer. 9. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation and if so to what extent. 10. It is not disputed and is also borne out by the evidence on record that the deceased was aged 41 years and he was working as a security guard on a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate issued by employer i.e., Balaji Security Services showing that the deceased was appointed as security guard on a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.24,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ suitable to the age of the deceased, who was aged 41 years, estimated the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and by adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, arrived at a total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/-. However, as the claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, the tribunal confined the award for the said amount only. The estimation of loss of dependency made by the tribunal and the total amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is in accordance with the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same cannot, therefore, be found fault with. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DEHLI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], 30% of the income has to be added by way of future prospects. It is to be noted that the deceased was an Ex-serviceman and he was also getting pension of Rs.1,627/-, as can be seen from Ex.A-7 pension statement issued by the SBI. After discharge from military, the deceased secured re-employment in a private agency i.e., Balaji Security Services by way of rehabilitation. It is, therefore, considered inappropriate to consider awarding of any amount towards future prospects, on account of purely temporary nature of the services the deceased was rendering as a security personnel subsequent to his discharge from military. However, in view of the fact that the tribunal, has on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, found that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/- by applying the II Schedule, but confined the award only to Rs.3 lakhs, the amount claimed in the claim application, it is considered just and proper to award enhancement only to the extent of the balance amount of Rs.82,000/-. The claimants are held entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified accordingly. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th July, 2010. Lrkm. [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)