HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.1555 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.1377 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 19.12.2002. The factual back ground for the appeal is that Ayyappa swami, son of respondents 1 and 2 herein was stated to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer at the age of 20 years and maintaining his parents. Ayyappa Swami, a bachelor was stated to be going by walk on 28.05.2001 at about 1.45 P.M. near Kepral bus stop. When the car owned by the 1st respondent driven in high speed rashly and negligently, dashed against him, he was stated to have died on the same day and hence they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the car. The owner of the car did not enter appearance before the Tribunal, while the insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of all their allegations. The claim was stated to be exorbitant and the 2nd respondent/appellant desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation and examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1, during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the contents of Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.5 charge sheet corroborated by the oral evidence of the eye-witness PW.2 and concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver without any contributory negligence from the deceased. The Tribunal in the absence of any documentary evidence and due to the non-examination of the contractor under whom the deceased was claimed to be working, considered the deceased to be earning Rs.1,800/- to 2,000/- per month as a labourer. While noting that the First Information Report and post-mortem report Exs.A.1 and A.3 show that the deceased was an able bodied young man, at an age of 20 years and was working as a labourer under a contractor, the Tribunal assessed the contribution of the deceased to his parents at atleast Rs.1000/- per month. The parents were hence considered entitled to loss of dependency at Rs.1,56,000/- applying the multiplier ‘13’ with reference to the age of the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and other incidental expenses. On the total compensation of Rs.1,76,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs, directed sharing of the compensation equally between the parents and gave further directions about the disbursement of the compensation. The insurer filed the appeal contending that huge amount of compensation was awarded without proof of any earnings of the deceased and the insurer, therefore, desired that the award be reversed. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the car with his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by any party. The ownership of the car with the 1st respondent to the claim and its subsisting insurance with the appellant herein were also not disputed and hence, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to the claim to justly and adequately compensate the parents of the deceased cannot be in dispute. The quantum of compensation alone remains to be considered and the age of the deceased was mentioned as 20 years in Ex.A.3 post-mortem report and his mother, being aged about 38 years by the time of the death of the deceased in the accident was therefore, not unnatural. As the deceased, a bachelor, died leaving his parents alone, taking the age of the mother as the basis for assessment of compensation was in accordance with accepted principles and for that age in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the appropriate multiplier would have been ‘15’. But, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of ‘13’ only. Insofar as the loss of dependency is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the probable income of the deceased as a labourer under a contractor at Rs.1,800/- to Rs.2,000/- per month and with reference to the minimum wages payable to even an unskilled labourer, at that time, the assessment cannot be considered excessive. The able bodied young person should have occupied himself in some avocation to maintain himself and his parents and the Tribunal considered only about 50% of the assessed income as the loss of dependency for the parents, which is in tune with the principle laid down by Sarla Verma (1 supra). So, under the head loss of dependency, the parents would have been entitled to Rs.24,000/- more than what was awarded by the Tribunal on application of the appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and other incidental expenses and again Sarla Verma (1 supra) decided that the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Under these heads, therefore, it can be said that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded in excess, but as the claimants should have been awarded Rs.24,000/- more towards loss of dependency, there is no reason to interfere with the over all grant of compensation, while there need be no enhancement in the absence of cross objections or appeal by the claimants. Under the circumstances aforesaid, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 7th February, 2011. PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298