THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3054 of 2003 J U D G M E N T: The claimants filed this appeal questioning the order dated 26.02.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal in O.P. No. 595 of 1999, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 81,000/- is not commensurate with the loss they sustained due to the death of Sri R. Srinivas (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’). Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents and appellants 3 and 4 are brother and sister of the deceased respectively. They filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation at the rate or Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.03.1999 while he was going to Chagallu Village in a TATA Sumo bearing No. AP36E 6611, belonging to the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. According to them, the deceased, at the time of accident, was earning Rs.3,000/- per month on milk business and agricultural works. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the dependency of the appellants and the earnings of the deceased and that there is violation of the conditions of licence. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2) Whether the petitioners are legal heirs and dependants of the deceased to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after giving credence to the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident, held the first issue in favour of the appellants. On the second count, the Tribunal held that since there is no evidence to prove the income of the deceased, his earnings as a labourer was considered as Rs.900/- and his contribution towards the family was taken as Rs.6,000/- per annum. The deceased was an unmarried and aged about 21 years. Therefore, the age of his mother attains significance in applying the multiplier and accordingly, the Tribunal applied it as “11” and thus, arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.81,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 11 x Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages), in view of the fact that the Government has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to them under Apadbandu scheme. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that the conditions of the policy have been violated, inasmuch as the policy is a comprehensive one and as per its conditions, ten persons are entitled to claim the compensation and there is no evidence to show that more than ten persons claimed compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in taking the contribution of the deceased towards his family at Rs.500/- per month. According to him, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have taken the same at least at Rs.2,000/- per month. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company. In this case, the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of his death and he is unmarried and as per the claim of the appellants, he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month, according to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], in respect of bachelors, 50% of the earnings has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the contribution of the deceased towards his family is taken as Rs.1,000/- per month. It is a settled principle of law that the age of the mother is to be taken for determining the multiplier in case of the death of a bachelor. Admittedly, the age of the mother of the deceased is 45 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘15’. Hence, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,000/- p.m. x 12 x 15). The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order dated 26.02.2003 in O.P. No. 595 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), at Warangal to the effect that the appellants are entitled to compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- , but however, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization against all the respondents. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 19th August 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121