HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3589 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.1893 of 2000 vide order dated 21-11-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 2. Claimants are parents and unmarried sister of the deceased Sathish Kumar. The owner of the lorry bearing No.UP83 – B – 9791 that involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 22-08-2000 at about 1-00 PM, while the deceased, who was a 19 years old boy, was going on his cycle to his house, at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, lorry bearing No.UP83 – B – 9791 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed against the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. A case in Crime No.545 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. The deceased was alleged to be working in KT Enterprises owned by PW.2, K. Manohar, and getting a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. Hence, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident that occurred on 22-8-2000 near KPHB Colony, resulting in the death of Satish Kumar was on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.UP83 B-9791 by its driver? II) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from ? III) To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,050/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.1,050 x 1/3 = Rs.350/-) out of the same towards his personal expenses, which comes to (Rs.1,050 – Rs.350) Rs.700/- per month, and as the deceased died unmarried taking the age of the mother of deceased between 40 to 45 years and by applying multiplier 15, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- to the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,050/- per month, whereas evidence of PW.2, employer of the deceased, is that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. Further, Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the mother of the deceased between 40 to 45 years, whereas she was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. 10. There is no dispute about the accident and the claimants being entitled to compensation. Further, there is also no dispute about the liability of the insurance company. Hence, there is no need to go into those questions. 11. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is appropriate ? 12. As far as the age of the mother of the deceased is concerned, there is absolutely no material on record. Tribunal assessed her age between 40 to 45 years, which cannot be said to be unreasonable as the deceased was said to be 19 years old at the time of accident. PW.1, father of the deceased, never spoke about the age of the mother of the deceased. Thus, there is no material on record to show what exactly was the age of the mother of the deceased except an averment in the petition. Thus, in the absence of any evidence with regard to the age of the mother of the deceased, it cannot be accepted that she was around 37 years old at the time of accident. Hence, taking the age of the mother of the deceased between 40 to 45 years and consequent application of multiplier 15 by the Tibunal cannot be said to be incorrect. 13. Now the question is with regard to income of the deceased. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that PW.2’s evidence revealed that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. But, there is no authentic material to show that deceased was working under PW.2. PW.2 admitted in his cross-examination that in his records submitted to the Labour Department, he did not mention the name of the deceased as his worker. Hence, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the contention of the claimants that deceased was working with PW.2 cannot be said to be proved at all. 15. However, the deceased can be treated as an ordinary labourer and must have been earning Rs.40/- to 50/- a day and accordingly his income can be taken at Rs.1,200/- per month on average. In which event also, 50% of the monthly salary of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses since he was unmarried as held by the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1]. Then also the compensation that can be awarded to the claimants would not exceed Rs.1,45,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal. 16. However, in view of the law laid down in R.K. MALIK v. KIRAN PAL[2] and as the compensation is being computed on the basis of approximate age of the mother of the deceased and approximate income of the deceased, another sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) can be awarded to the claimants towards non-pecuniary damages and the same is accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) from Rs.1,45,000/-. All the claimants, who are parents and sister of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.5,000/- each of the enhanced compensation. They are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 19, 2010. PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] 2009(14) SCC 1