THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1539 of 2000 Date:05.03.2010 Between: M.Seethi and others …Appellants And P.Yadagiri Reddy and others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1539 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award, dated 16.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal Special Judge for SPE & AC Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1156 of 1998. 2. The appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. As against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,200/- as compensation. 3. The 2nd appellant died and the appellants 1 and 3 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Seethya were already on record is no need to bring other legal representatives. 4. The accident occurred on 20.08.1997 while the deceased and others were traveling in the auto bearing No. AP-11-U-3031, as a result of the lorry bearing No. AP-28-T-4450 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashing the deceased. On receiving serious injuries, the deceased died on the spot. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1200/- per month on the ground that there is no evidence forthcoming in proof of the income. The deceased was said to be aged 25 years on the date of the accident. But, the Tribunal considered his age as 30 years. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the approach of the Tribunal in taking the income and age of the deceased is wholly erroneous and the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the age as 24 years. 6. Since there is no documentary evidence regarding the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased mentioned in the post mortem report which needs no interference. However, considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1200/- per month is not appropriate and very low for the purpose of computing the compensation. As the accident occurred in the year 1997, the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation. 7. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,000/- x 12 = Rs.24,000/-. From this, 1/3rd i.e. Rs.8,000/- has to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased and the balance amount i.e. Rs.16,000/- has to be taken as contribution to the family. The relevant multiplier is 17. To arrive at the loss of earnings, the said amount has to be capitalized with 17 i.e. Rs.16,000/- x 17 = Rs.2,72,000/-. The first appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are further entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants 1 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensation. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.1,13,800/- (Rs.2,92,000/- minus 1,78,200/-). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,78,200/- to Rs.2,92,000/-. The 3rd appellant who is the father of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.28,200/- which is allotted by the Tribunal below towards his share and the entire balance amount shall be retained by the 1st appellant who is the widow of the deceased. There shall be no order as costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:05.03.2010 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1539 of 2000 Date:05.03.2010