IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1446 OF 2006 Between : Sagili Ramakotamma and others. .... APPELLANTS AND A.P.S.R.T.C. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1446 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation in pursuance of the award in O.P.No.352 of 2004, dated 27.03.2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur. 2. The appellants hereinafter referred to as claimants for the purpose of convenience. 3. The claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are his parents. 4. On 01.01.2004 the deceased Venkateswarlu took his cattle for grazing and while returning he was hit by the bus bearing registration No.AP-9Z-9917, belonging to the respondent No.1 herein. The claimants therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for compensation a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest @12% per annum. 5. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1, besides examining PW-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on their behalf. 6. On consideration of evidence PW-2 who was the eye witness to the accident, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. This issue relating to the rash and negligence is not in dispute in this appeal since the respondent has not preferred any appeal. 7. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and taking age of the deceased as 23 years, applied “13” multiplier. On this basis, the income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.1500/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd amount, the net dependency was arrived at Rs.1000/- per month, thus awarded Rs.1,56,000/- towards pecuniary loss. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and a further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. As the claimants were not satisfied with the award they have preferred this appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 9. PW-1 in her evidence stated that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and he used to attend cultivation and also rearing goats. They got Ac.10.00 of land at Eluru and used to raise paddy crop and also dry crop and derived an income of Rs.50,000/- per annum from agriculture. The deceased used to attend the cultivation personally, and there is no other family member who was attending the cultivation. It is her further evidence that on the date of the accident, the deceased went along with goats for the purpose of grazing and on his way back, he died in the accident. In the cross examination on behalf of the respondent, PW-1 reiterated that they possessed twelve goats each costing Rs.2,500/- and they were rearing the goats for one year and then they sell in the market. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning from agriculture. 10. From the evidence of PW-2 who is no other than the wife of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased who was rearing the goats and eking his livelihood from the sale of such goats. There is no evidence that the claimants had any land and derived any income form agriculture. But the evidence of PW-2 to the extent that the deceased was earning some money by rearing the goats and eking for livelihood cannot be disbelieved. In that view of the matter, it is presumable that his income would be more than Rs.50/- as fixed by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 01.01.2004 and even if the minimum wages are taken into consideration, his income could be reasonably fixed at Rs.75/- per day and the monthly income can be fixed at Rs.2,250/- per month. The annual income therefore would be Rs.27,000/-. Since there are only three dependents applying principles laid down by the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], 1/3rd is liable to be deducted and the net contribution would therefore, be Rs.18,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied 13 multiplier, whereas as per the Judgment the multiplier 18 is applicable, if the deceased aged between 15 to 25 years. Applying the same the pecuniary loss would come to Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.18,000 x 18). The claimants however, have restricted their claim for a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for the said amount. 11. Therefore, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,76,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for interest on the enhanced amount @6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J JULY 01, 2010. YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298