IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.3066 of 2003 Between: Mekala Kalavathi and others .. Appellants And B. Devanna and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.987 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 07-08-2001. The deceased Mekala Monanna was aged 33 years and was Shepherd and agriculturist owning Ac.2.30 guntas of land. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 30-10-1998 he was travelling as agricultural labourer in the trailer attached to tractor No.AP 25D 6911 of the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent. At about 1.30 P.M., the tractor driver drove the vehicle in high speed rashly and negligently and both the tractor and trailer turned turtle near Chikli village. Mekala Monanna received multiple grievous injuries and was shifted to Navipet hospital where he died on the same day. Hence, the wife, parents, minor son and two minor daughters of Monanna sued the owner and the insurer of the tractor and trailer for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. While the owner of the tractor and trailer remained ex parte, the insurer denied the claims of the claimants and also denied the tractor driver having a valid driving licence. The compensation claimed was contested as excessive and the insurer desired that the claim be dismissed with costs. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 inquest report as probablising that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The Tribunal noted Ex.A.4 ryot passbook to be showing the deceased having Ac.2.30 guntas of land and Ex.A.2 inquest panchanama to be showing that the deceased to be aged 33 years. The Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and applied multiplier of 14 for the age of 33 years and deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal assessed, thus, a total sum of Rs.2,24,000/-. The Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the other claimants, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and granted Rs.2,36,000/- in total. While making the owner and the insurer of the tractor jointly and severally liable to pay the same, the Tribunal directed interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs also to be payable. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the assessment of the income of the deceased in spite of his having Ac.2.30 guntas of land and deduction of one- third towards his personal expenses as well as application of a lower multiplier are incorrect. The damages under the other heads also should have been higher and hence, the claimants desired that the balance of compensation also as claimed by them be awarded. Sri Kuldeep Jadav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the insurer/2nd respondent are heard. The 1st respondent did not enter appearance before this Court also. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the tractor driver is concerned, none of the parties made any challenge and similarly the ownership of the tractor with the 1st respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent as noted by the Tribunal were also not questioned by any party. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to adequately and justly compensate the claimants for the death of Mekala Monanna is, therefore, not in dispute. The only question which remains is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] made a multiplier of 16 applicable to a person aged between 31 and 35 years, which is squarely applicable to the case of the deceased aged 33 years. So, on account of the Tribunal applying the multiplier of 14, the claimants were deprived of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of dependency, which has to be, hence, granted. The same precedent also directed that the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, while the widow will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Under the heads of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.12,000/- and the claimants will be entitled to a balance of Rs.8,000/-. Apart from these two considerations, it should be noted that though the Tribunal observed that one-third has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased from the estimated income, it actually deducted one-fourth of such income as assessed by it, which is in tune with Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) and needs no disturbance. However, it should be noted that the deceased at the age of 33 years with his liability to maintain himself and six family members, was eking out his livelihood not only by doing agricultural wok and rearing sheep but also by cultivating his own land of Ac.2.30 guntas. The very accident was claimed to have occurred when he was travelling in the trailer of the tractor going as an agricultural labourer. The minimum wages, which would have been earned by the deceased even under the Minimum Wages Act during the relevant time, would have been somewhere near the income assessed by the Tribunal and nothing more was assessed towards the income which the deceased was getting from his agricultural land or sheep or the loss sustained by the family due to loss of supervision and management by the deceased over the sheep and the land. A minimal estimate of such loss of management and supervision can be about Rs.500/- per month, in making which assessment, of course, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable. If so, such loss will be about Rs.6,000/- per annum and if one-fourth of the same were to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which he would have incurred had he been alive, the balance would be Rs.4,500/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency on this count would come to Rs.72,000/-. To this sum, the other sums of Rs.36,000/- and Rs.8,000/- as specified above have to be added for making the total enhancement, to which the claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.1,16,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest on the original compensation at 12 per cent per annum. In view of the length of time, for which such interest has to be paid by the respondents, the same can be limited to 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced portion, while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award, dated 07-08-2001 in M.V.O.P. No.987 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- (One lakh and sixteen thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the enhanced compensation also shall be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared between the claimants. As claimants 4 to 6 have also become majors by efflux of time, no further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-12-2010 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298