THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3627 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.02.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.894 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation, was allowed in part awarding a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed the application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.03.2004. 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day the deceased along with the claimants and another daughter was returning on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-3902 from Yellamma temple and a lorry bearing No.AP-21-VTR-7000 came from Kurnool side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which the deceased and his minor daughter sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot and the minor daughter died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 30 years and was doing business and earning Rs.5000/- per month. 1st respondent-owner of the offending lorry remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not challenged as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- . Not satisfied with the same, claimants preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.1200/- per month is very low. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was doing business in Jawar grass and earning Rs.5000/- per month, they did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was young man aged 30 years and able bodied the income of Rs.1200/- per month appears to be rather on the lower side. It can be reasonably presumed that even an agricultural labourer would be earning at least Rs.100/- per day. Even if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.50/- per day it would come to Rs.1500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.12000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of ‘17’ which is appropriate to the age of the deceased the total compensation comes to Rs.2,04,000/-. Thus the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the appellants is quite reasonable. Claimants are therefore entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by them with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th October, 2011 Tsy