THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2793 & 4444 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.2793 of 2008 is ﬁled by the insurer questioning the award, dated 07.05.2008, in M.V.O.P.No.1025 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.4444 of 2008 is ﬁled by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 herein ﬁled the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Mohammed Saleem, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2006. 1st claimant is the mother and claimants 2 to 4 are the sisters of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased along with others was travelling in a seven-seater auto bearing No.AP 11 W 388 from Shahin Nagar to Pahadi Sharief and on the way Ashok Leyland make private bus bearing No.TN 01 N 0712, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to others. A case in Cr.No.268 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the bus. According to the claimants, the deceased was an auto driver and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. 5. The owner of the oﬀending vehicle-bus remained ex parte. The insurer ﬁled counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said ﬁnding is not seriously challenged by way of any appeal. The Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,78,000/-. 8. Mainly questioning the quantum of compensation, the insurer ﬁled M.A.C.M.No.2793 of 2008, and seeking enhancement of the compensation, claimants ﬁled the other appeal- M.A.C.M.A.No.4444 of 2008. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased was eking out his livelihood by plying an auto and that he was aged 23 years. In the absence of any evidence in proof of the income of the deceased, which was claimed at Rs.4000/- by the claimants, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3000/- per month. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants would seek to rely upon a decision of the apex Court in RAMCHANDRAPPA v. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [1], wherein the income of a coolie was claimed at Rs.4500/-per month but the same was reduced by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/- and the same was held to be not justiﬁed, especially when the same was not repudiated by the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon a decision of the apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. KALPANA (SMT) AND OTHERS [2], wherein it is held that in the absence of any deﬁnite material about the income, monthly contribution to the family, after deduction of personal expenses, can be ﬁxed at Rs.3000/- per month. The question as to the reasonableness of the income, in the absence of any proof in support of the income claimed would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, having regard to the age of the deceased or the injured, as the case may be; the avocation he was pursuing and the potentiality of earning in the area of his operation besides his earning capacity. Hence, no hard and fast rule can be adopted as to what should be the reasonable income. 11. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was plying an auto and in the absence of any evidence to show that he was earning Rs.4000/- per month as claimed, it is considered that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month at an average of Rs.100/- per day. 12. The deceased is stated to be unmarried and left behind mother and three sisters, who are all depended on him. The evidence on record shows that all the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, as per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [3], though the deceased was unmarried, as the claimants are shown to be depending entirely on his income and father of the deceased is no more, the deduction of 1/3rd is to be made towards personal expenses. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. As the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother is to be taken into consideration. The 1st claimant-mother is aged 42 years. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’. The loss of dependency therefore works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. Claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Claimants are therefore held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,46,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modiﬁed accordingly. 13. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2793 of 2008, ﬁled by the insurer, is allowed in part to the extent stated above and M.A.C.M.A.No.4444 of 2008, filed by the claimants, is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2011 Tsy [1] 2011 (6) ALD 75 (SC) [2] (2007) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 538 [3] (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121