IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.843 of 2006 Between: Tamatam Subbamma & others … Appellants And: V.R.Prasada Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.843 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2005 in OP No.425 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum III Additional District Judge (FTC), Kadapa, wherein, the said claim application ﬁled by the appellants herein under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,29,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellants ﬁled claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Tamatam Pullaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took occurred on 13.01.2003. The ﬁrst claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants on that day, the deceased was returning to Kadapa in a jeep bearing No.AP 04 U 385 belonging to the ﬁrst respondent and at about 8.15 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, who tried to over take a lorry and RTC bus, dashed against RTC bus, resulting in the death of the deceased. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 50 years and was grazing sheeps and earnings Rs.5000/- per month. 4. The ﬁrst respondent-owner of the jeep remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 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 jeep by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,29,500/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisﬁed with the said award, the present appeal is ﬁled by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. The main contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 58 years and applying the relevant multiplier ‘13’. Though the claimants contended that the deceased was aged 50 years and was earning Rs.5000/- per month by grazing sheeps, but they have not adduced any evidence in that regard. As per Ex.A.3 post-mortem certiﬁcate, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 58 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 58 years and the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum, which is considered reasonable, as any daily wage earner can be expected to earn not less than Rs.100/- per day by doing hard labour. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier ‘5’ for the age of the deceased who was aged 58 years as per Ex.A.3. The deceased has left behind ﬁve claimants, who are dependents on him. As per Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], when number of dependents exceeded 4, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.27,000/- per annum (out of Rs.36,000/- 1/4th) and the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased as per the above decision is ‘9’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works to Rs.27,000/- x 9 = Rs.2,43,000/-. According to the above decision, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and ﬁrst claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,63,000/-, but the same is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- as claimed, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.11.2011 bss