THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 1101 of 2009 Judgment: This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 2nd March 2009 passed in OP No.1571 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, seeking enhancement of compensation. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased. Claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children of the first claimant and the deceased. On 30.11.2006 while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 22 G 7059 from Shadnagar to Penjaria village and when he reached Chandrayanaguda bus stage turning, the DCM van bearing No. AP 22 T 9779 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to the local hospital and from there to Osmania General Hospital, but on the way he succumbed to injuries. The police, Kothur registered a case in Crime No.271 of 2006 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the DCM van. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 30 years and he was working as a labourer and earning Rs.4500/- per month as on the date of accident. The claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters. They denied the averments of the claimants with regard to manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They have also denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM van and further contended that the claim of the claimants is excessive. The Tribunal framed the following issues. 1. Whether the deceased sustained injuries on 30.11.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of DCM Van bearing No.AP 22T 9779? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so from whom? 3. To what relief. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant herself was examined as PW.1 and one K. Pochaiah was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents none were examined, but the photographs have been marked as Ex.B1. The Tribunal, having observed that the evidence of PW.2, who is the direct witness to the incident, is corroborated with the recitals of the documents filed by the claimants, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van. On issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, estimated the loss of contribution at Rs.10,000/- per annum and by taking the age of the deceased as 30 years applied the multiplier ‘18’ and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-, which includes Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. The main contention of Smt. A. Chayadevi, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, is that the deceased was aged about 30 years and that the minimum wage for a labourer is not less than Rs.100/- per day and that now a days the daily wage labourers are being paid Rs.150/- per day and in the above circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the minimum wage of a worker should be taken at Rs.100/- per day and even services of a house wife are also estimated not less than Rs.100/- per day. The income of the daily wage labourer appears to be ranging between Rs.100/- and Rs.120/- per day in some areas and up to Rs.150/- per day in some parts of the State. Now a days, the daily wage workers are earning not less than Rs.120/- to Rs.150/- per day. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased can reasonably be estimated at Rs.120/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,600/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted from the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.2400/- p.m. (Rs.3600 – 1200) and annual loss of contribution comes to Rs.28,800/-. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 30 years, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier at ‘18’. If Rs.28,800/- is multiplied with 18 the total loss of contribution comes to Rs.5,18,400. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. However, the claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only. In the facts and circumstances of the case an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) appears to be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest. I am not inclined to disturb the same in the circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. till the date of realization. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed. No costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 23.03.2011 Nsr