IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2602 of 2002 Between: Nune Srilatha & 2 others ..... Appellants And Jeejula Sateesh & another …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.925 of 2001, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 15-05- 2002. The factual background for the appeal is that Sanjeeva, his brother and brother’s daughter were travelling by Jeep No.AP-36-T 2340 on 18-04-2001 at about 8.30 A.M. Near Battuthanda turning point at the outskirts of Chintha Nekkonda, another Jeep No.AP-9T 4164, driven in high speed rashly and negligently, came in opposite direction and dashed against the jeep. All the inmates of the jeep were injured and Sanjeeva was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, for treatment where he was an inpatient up to 02-05-2001 and then he underwent treatment at Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda, up to 03-05-2001 and then at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where he died on 22-05-2001 while undergoing treatment. The deceased was the sole bread earner for the family consisting of his wife and parents, who claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending jeep. The claimants referred to Crime No.36 of 2001, registered by the Parwathagiri Police in respect of the accident and stated that the deceased Sanjeeva, at the age of 23 years, was earning Rs.3,500/- per month as Hamali in a Saw Mill. While the owner of the jeep remained ex parte, the insurer resisted the claim claiming the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling to be rash and negligent in driving and to have caused the accident. The insurer also claimed the claim made to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, etc., and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of eye witness-P.W.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1–FIR, Ex.A.2–Inquest Report, Ex.A.8–Charge Sheet and Ex.A.9–FIR issued by Afzalgunj Police on the death of Sanjeeva to conclude that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending jeep. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A.3- Post Mortem Certificate and Ex.A.2-Inquest Report stating the age of the deceased to be 18 years, but as the claimants themselves claimed his age to be 23 years, the same was accepted. While Ex.A.11–Identity Card of the deceased Sanjeeva issued by Hamali Workers Union, Warangal, was referred to, the income of the deceased was considered to be Rs.2,000/- per month in the absence of Ex.A.11 specifying the income. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased on such assessed income leaving the contribution to the family at Rs.15,996/- per annum. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 and arrived at the total loss of dependency to the family at Rs.2,71,932/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transport, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.2,87,932/-. The Tribunal refused to grant any compensation for pain and suffering or for loss of love and affection and expectation of life. The Tribunal passed the award for Rs.2,87,932/- with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. The claimants are before this Court with this appeal contending that when the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month, the earning capacity of the deceased ought to have been taken at least at Rs.3,000/- and the proceedings of the District Collector under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, ought to have been considered in calculating the daily wages of the deceased. The deceased was alive from 18-04-2001 till 22-05- 2001 after the accident and hence, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for pain and suffering. The other amounts also should have been awarded as claimed and hence, the claimants desired that the balance compensation claimed by them be awarded. Heard Smt. K Rajitha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Devanand, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer, while the 1st respondent or his learned counsel did not enter appearance at the time of hearing. The finding of the Tribunal about the driver of the 1st respondent being responsible for the accident was not challenged by the respondents. The conclusion about the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased due to the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent is also not under challenge. The only question left for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. While the Post Mortem Certificate-Ex.A.3 and the Inquest Report-Ex.A.2 were stated to have mentioned the age of the deceased as 18 years, the claimants themselves claimed it to be 23 years, which was accepted by the Tribunal from which there need be no deviation. The income of the deceased was assessed notionally at Rs.2,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence and the said assessment was admitted to be not in deviation from the minimum wages in vogue under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time in respect of unskilled labourers. 1/3rd of his income was deducted towards personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive and rightly so, and the amount of Rs.1,000/- granted towards transport, Rs.3,000/- granted towards medical expenses on the basis of bills to a tune of Rs.1500/-, Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium cannot be in dispute. While the funeral expenses were awarded only at Rs.2,000/-, as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], they have to be awarded at Rs.5,000/- and hence, the claimants should be entitled to the difference amount of Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal did not award any sum towards loss of estate, which should also be granted at Rs.5,000/- as per the said decision. Insofar as the multiplier applied to arrive at the loss of dependency is concerned, instead of 18 as per the said decision, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 and therefore, Rs.15,996/- under that head have to be added. Therefore, the claimants will be further entitled to Rs.23,996/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.24,000/-. While the claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount, interest on such enhancement should be restricted to 6% p.a. in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid. Therefore, the award dated 15-5-2002 in O.P.No.925 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.24,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award. The enhanced compensation also shall be shared in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal in respect of the compensation awarded by the impugned award. No further directions need be given concerning disbursement of the enhanced compensation at this distance of time. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-01-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298