HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.2816 AND 2818 OF 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed these appeals. 3. CMA No.2816 of 2001 arises out of O.P. No.980 of 1999 and CMA No.2818 of 2001 arises out of O.P. No.1038 of 1999. The claimants in CMA No.2816 of 2001 are dependants of the deceased Prabhakar, who died in the accident, and the claimant in CMA No.2818 of 2001 is the injured B. Pedda Ailaiah himself. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 25-02-1999, while Prabhakar and B. Pedda Ailaiah were travelling in lorry bearing No.ATR – 2063 for loading and unloading purpose along with other labourers, near Ramachandrapuram Village limits, Bachannapet, Warangal District, as the driver of the lorry drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, it turned turtle, as a result, Prabhakar died on the spot and B. Pedda Ailaiah sustained grievous injuries. Hence, dependants of the deceased Prabhakar filed O.P. No.980 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and the injured Pedda Aialah filed O.P. No.1038 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte in both the O.Ps. and only respondent No.2, the National Insurance Co. Limited, which is insurer of respondent No.1’s lorry involved in the accident, filed its counters denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: (a) IN O.P. No.980 of 1999 : 1. Whether the deceased Prabhakar died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent’s by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? (b) IN O.P. No.1038 of 1999 : 1. Whether the petitioner (claimant) sustained injuries due to rash and negligent of the 1st respondent’s lorry by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove their case, claimants in O.P. No.980 of 1999 got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the Insurance Company no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, with consent. 7. To prove his case, claimant in O.P. No.1038 of 1999 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and on behalf of the Insurance Company no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,83,300/- to the claimants in O.P. No.980 of 1999 and Rs.2,500/- to the claimant in O.P. No.1038 of 1999 with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensations, the claimants in both the O.Ps. preferred these appeals respectively. 9. Heard Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in both the appeals, Sri Shankar Bheemasethi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company – respondent No.2 and perused the impugned awards and the material made available on record. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing these appeals ? C.M.A. No.2816 OF 2001: 11. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- a day, if not as claimed, and awarded appropriate compensation and that instead 1/3rd of the income, 1/4th of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased in view of the recent law laid by the Supreme Court, as the dependants are four. 12. Now the question that falls for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inappropriate ? 13. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.40/- a day, which according to the learned counsel for the claimants is on lower side. The accident has taken place in the earlier part of 1999 on 25-02-1999. In 1998-1999, wages of the labourer were not at Rs.100/- to 150/- a day. In fact, now in 2010, wages of the labourer are in that range. Hence, income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.50/- a day instead of Rs.40/-. 14. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.50/- a day and out of the same if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.1,125/- (Rs.1,500/- x 1/3) per month and Rs.13,500/- per annum. As the deceased was 30 years old as on the date of his death according to Exs.A-3 and A-4, inquest report and postmortem report respectively, the appropriate multiplier for his age group is 18. Accordingly, if the annual contribution of the deceased to his family is capitalized with multiplier 18 (Rs.13,500/- x 18), it comes to Rs.2,43,000/- towards loss of dependency to the claimants. Another amount of Rs.7,000/- can be added under other heads as the age and income of the deceased are taken approximately. Thus, total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- can be awarded to the claimants. 15. Accordingly, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- from Rs.1,83,300/-. The remaining findings of the Tribunal are confirmed. Apportionment of the enhanced compensation also shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.2816 OF 2001: 16. The Tribunal, taking the initial medical certificate produced by the claimant into consideration, which revealed that he suffered only a scratch in the lumbar region and there was no fracture, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the claimant. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs.2,500/- awarded to the claimant cannot be said to be insufficient or on lower side. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.2816 of 2001 is allowed in part and C.M.A. No.2818 of 2001 is dismissed in toto. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 29, 2010. PV