HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 4441 of 2008 Date: 21-07-2011 Between: Smt. Jaangiramma and others ………. Appellants And Bantu Gopal and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 4441 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 04-08-2008 passed in O.P.No.2665 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum- XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the said O.P. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02-10-2006 at about 9-30 PM, while the deceased was going in an auto along with others from Julapally towards Chandradhara, another auto bearing No.AP 22V 2900 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the auto in which the deceased was travelling, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The deceased is unmarried. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the mother and brothers of the deceased, filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner herself was examined as PW-1 besides examining PW- 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were got marked. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, allowed the O.P. in part awarding the total compensation of Rs.1,83,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, and made the respondents 1 and 2 therein, who are the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- appellants herein mainly urged that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier ‘14’ instead of ‘15’ which is applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased as per the guidelines laid down in SARLA VERMA v. DTC [1]. He further urged that the Tribunal deducted 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, but as the deceased is a bachelor, only 50% of the income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, and as the Tribunal failed to consider those aspects, the impugned order needs interference by this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the order of the Tribunal, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation? 7. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The offending vehicle is having valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. Admittedly the deceased is a bachelor and the petitioners are his legal heirs. The Tribunal, while taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was working as a Driver as on the date of accident, fixed his income at Rs.3,000/- per moth. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- or Rs.36,000/- per annum taking into consideration of his profession as Driver. However, the Tribunal deducted 2/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and applied multiplier ‘14’. But, as per the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA’s case, since the deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the income only should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and further as the age of the mother of the deceased is 40 years, the correct multiplier applicable is ‘15’ as per the above decision. 8. Therefore, if Rs.36,000/- is taken as the annual income of the deceased and 50% of the same is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.18,000/- and after applying multiplier ‘15’ to the same, the total amount comes to Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000/-X15). 9. The Tribunal, though awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, however failed to award the compensation towards funeral expenses. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in SARLA VERMA’s case, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, in total, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- (Rs.2,70,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/-). 9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.2,90,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 21-07-2011 YCR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121