HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3290 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.2056 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The appellants are the claimants, who claimed compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Balaraju in a motor accident. On 10.07.2002 when the deceased was travelling in a DCM Van bearing No.AP 36 U 4785, the driver of the van dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.KA 05 5827, which was parked without any indication. The deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as owner of the Welcome Hotel at Nalgonda and he was said to be aged about 30 years. The claim was made against the owner of the stationed lorry and also the Insurance Company, who are respondents Nos.1 and 2 and also against the owner of the van and the Insurance Company, in which the deceased was travelling. After considering the rival contentions on both sides, the lower Tribunal has held that the incident happened due to the fault of the driver of the stationed lorry due to his rashness and negligence and exonerated the liability of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and granted a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not prefer any appeal challenging the liability. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. POINT: So far as the nature of incident and the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no controversy. According to the claim of the petitioners, the deceased was running a hotel and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner relied upon the certificates Exs.A.10 and A.11, which evidently does not stand in the name of the deceased, but they are in the name of his brother Harender and therefore, the ownership of the hotel by the deceased is not considered. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the daily income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and only taken into consideration 26 employment days per month and determined the compensation. This is not correct. Evidently, though the licence and the business may be standing in the name of the brother, the fact remains he was also attending to that business and the profit or the income therefrom cannot be ignored for the services rendered by the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, the income of the deceased, being not a labourer and having been employed in the hotel, can be fixed reasonably at Rs.2,500/- per month and from that 1/3rd is to be deducted and then the contribution comes to Rs.20,000/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased is determined as between 30 to 32 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘17’, which appears to be reasonable. The total compensation to which the petitioners will be entitled to is Rs.3,40,000/-. The petitioners will be entitled to further compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium as granted by the lower Tribunal. The total compensation is Rs.3,70,000/-. 5. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. The interest on the enhanced amount shall be at 7.5% per annum and there shall be enforceability against respondents Nos.1 and 2 only as found by the lower Tribunal. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:14.12.2011 INL