THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2411 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 25.08.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.275 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor questioning the quantum of compensation. The deceased Suresh, who was said to be aged about 27 years, was the son of the 1st petitioner and brother of the 2nd petitioner. He was said to be a labourer employed on a tractor-cum- trailor bearing No.AP-03-U-1632 and AP-03-U-1653 and he died on 14.06.1998 in a motor accident occurred on 13.06.1998. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st respondent-owner remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. After recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the petitioners and the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of the respondents, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased died in a motor accident and was aged 27 years. The nature of the incident and liability of the insurance company are not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that though the deceased was a labourer earning Rs.120/- per day, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration only the earning capacity as Rs.50/- per day and restricted to only 20 days, which is not proper. Evidently, the deceased has grown up and even the earning capacity of a coolie for every month by the date of the incident can be fixed at Rs.1,500/- and the minimum wages are also not less than that amount. Since the deceased was unmarried, the personal expenditure has to be deducted at half of the earnings and contribution to the family has to be fixed at Rs.750/- and the annual contribution comes to Rs./9,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the lower Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘8’, which, according to him, is not correct by taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased. Therefore, the age of the mother of the deceased is about 45 years at the time of the accident and by taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], for the age of 45 to 50 years, the multiplier ‘13’ can be applied and the total dependency comes to Rs.1,17,000/- (Rs.9,000/- X 13). The petitioners will be entitled to non- pecuniary damages at Rs.10,000/-. The total compensation for which the petitioners are entitled, is Rs.1,27,000/- rounded off to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only). The petitioners are also entitled for the interest at 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 18-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2411 of 2011 DATE: 18-10-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121