THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4763 of 2004 Dated: 23-12-2010 Between: Smt. Chand Bee and others. ………..Appellants and Kashmir Singh and another. …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4763 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 21-04-2004, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.2269 of 2001, filed by the appellants-claimants claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Mohd. Qasim (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is the husband of the 1st appellant and father of the appellants 2 to 8, in a motor accident when he along with others was pulling rickshaw from Moosarambagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad, towards Durga Nagar side and when he reached in front of Balaji Sweet shop, near Ali Café, at that time, one lorry bearing Regn. No.HR/38/E-4796 came behind him in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed him. Due to which, deceased fell down, received serious and fatal injuries and died on the spot. 2. Before the Court below, 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 besides P.W.2 and the documents marked under Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded Rs.2,30,400/- towards future loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, the appellants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,47,400/-. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Court below, the claimants- appellants filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, especially with regard to the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Court below, contended that the Court below failed to assess the monthly income of the deceased and estimated only at Rs.14,400/- per annum. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years. Further, he was a casual labour-cum-rickshaw puller and was earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, for all these reasons, the compensation awarded by the Court below towards loss of dependency may be enhanced. 6. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Court below has awarded compensation more than the appellants actually entitled, and therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to enhance the award granted by the Court below. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died. The Court below awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which, in my considered view, may not be interfered with and the same is confirmed. 8. So far as granting of Rs.2,30,400/- towards future loss of dependency is concerned, the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the income derived by the deceased from his profession. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was aged about 40 years, earning income from working as casual labour and pulling rickshaw. Considering all these aspects, his monthly income can be taken at least Rs.2,500/-. Then his annual income comes to Rs.30,000/- . If 1/5th is deducted towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. According to the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘15’. Then the total loss of dependency can be granted Rs.3,60,000/- (24000/- (x) 15). Further, the Court below did not grant any compensation towards loss of estate. Hence, the appellants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. The Court below granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium. Since the appellants are granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, the compensation granted towards consortium is reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/-(Rs.3,60,000/-(+) Rs.10,000/-(+) Rs.10,000/- (+) Rs.2,000/-). 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part holding that the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.1,34,600/- (3,82,000/- (-) 2,47,400/-) as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.2269 of 2001, dated 21-04-2004, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 23, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr