THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. No.771 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 04.12.2007, in O.P.No.230 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Sangareddy, wherein the claim of the appellants herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of their mother-deceased-Gaddameedi Dasthamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.03.2006. According to the claimants, on that day, when the deceased was standing at Sagar Barbar shop at Aruna Towers, a water tanker with tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-07-G-3373 and AP-07-U-6115, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased resulting in her death while being shifted to the hospital. A case in Cr.No.329 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the water tanker. According to the claimants, the deceased was a labourer earning Rs.4000/- per month and was maintaining the family as her husband pre- deceased. Respondents filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents, but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the water tanker by its driver. The Tribunal however awarded Rs.80,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Not satisfied with the award, claimants preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding on issue No.2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability, which is contradictory to the finding on issue No.1. The finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver has become final as there was no appeal. When that is so, the question of awarding any amount under no fault liability does not arise. The Tribunal ought to have estimated the loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased-mother of the claimants by applying the suitable multiplier. 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer would submit that as the claimants are majors they cannot be considered to be depending on the deceased. 8. Claimants were aged 18 and 19 years by the date of the accident and the deceased was aged 38 years. Simply because the claimants have attained majority, they do not cease to be dependants unless there is some evidence forthcoming to show that the claimants were also earning and they are no longer depending on the deceased. In the evidence, P.W.1 has specifically stated that her mother was going for coolie work and maintaining the family as his father pre-deceased his mother. In the cross-examination, it was not suggested to P.W.1 that himself or his brother were no longer depending on the deceased-mother. In the absence of any evidence to show that the claimants were having their own source of income and that they were no more depending on their mother and having regard to the fact that the claimants were aged only 18 and 19 years by the date of the accident, the contention of the respondents that the claimants cannot be treated to be depending on the deceased, is untenable. 9. According to the claimants, deceased was a labourer. The charge sheet-Ex.A2 also shows that the deceased was a daily wage earner. Ex.A3-postmortem report shows that the deceased was aged 38 years. The income of the deceased can therefore be reasonably estimated at Rs.50/- per day which comes to Rs.1500/- per month and deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be estimated at Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘15’, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, as per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,80,000/-.Claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses as per the above decision of the apex Court. Thus, claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September, 2011. Tsy