IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2459 of 2003 Between: Jilla Sammaiah & others. .... Appellants AND Bolugoddu Upender & others. .... Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri S. Venugopal Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2459 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 31.07.2002 in MVOP.No.873 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”). The claimants in the O.P. are the appellants, who filed this appeal feeling partly aggrieved by the abovementioned award, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- as against the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by the appellants for the death of one Meenaiah, who is the father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and husband of appellant No.3. At the hearing, Sri S. Venugopal, learned counsel for the appellants has advanced three contentions, namely; (i) the Tribunal, while taking the income of the deceased as Rs.50/- per day towards his contribution to his family after excluding Rs.25/- towards his personal expenditure, has taken only 20 days in a month instead of taking at least 26 days, after excluding four Sundays in a month (ii) that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 11.5 as against the multiplier of 14 and (iii) that the Tribunal has not awarded funeral expenses. Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned Standing counsel representing respondent No.3, opposed the above contentions. With respect to the first contention of the learned counsel, a perusal of the award shows that the appellants have claimed that the deceased was a contractor. In the absence of evidence in support thereof, the Tribunal has treated the deceased as a daily wager and has taken the notional income of Rs.75/- per day. While the learned counsel fairly stated that this approach of the Tribunal may not call for any interference on this aspect, he has taken exception in taking 20 days in a month and arriving at the income of Rs.1,000/- per month. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. Ordinarily, a daily wage worker may not take more than one day off in a week except in cases of illness or other special circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that he would have earned at least for 26 days in a month. Considering the fact that the deceased would have earned more wages in future, but for his death, the possibility of the family loosing more income also cannot be ruled out. As such, in my opinion, it is reasonable to take 26 days to assess the loss of income. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased shall be taken as Rs.1,300/- per month as against Rs.1,000/- per month adopted by the Tribunal. With respect to the second submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 14, in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] the Supreme Court held that in case of death of a person of 45 years of age, the relevant multiplier is 14. Accordingly, the award is modified in respect of multiplier by substituting 14 for 11.5. As regards the third submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad submitted that in Sarla Varma (supra) the Supreme Court has standardized award of compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses by fixing a lump sum of Rs.20,000/-. He fairly submitted that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium while compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses was not awarded. Having regard to the law laid down in Sarla Varma (supra), the appellants are entitled to in all a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the above three heads. As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,000/-, the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2010 ES [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)