HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3490 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P. No.771 of 2001 dated 28-04-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as excessive and exorbitant, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited – respondent No.2. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal: 3. The case of the claimants is that on 07-11-2000, when the deceased M. Chandra Reddy was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No.AP13-V-8185, on the way to Rayagiri after passing Katepally village bus stop, tractor bearing No.AP24-T-6117, which was going in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed the autorickshaw, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital on 14-08-2000 while undergoing treatment. Hence, the claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.3,22,000/- under various heads. 4. Respondents Nos.1 and 3, who are owner and driver of the tractor, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, the appellant herein, filed counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident caused death to the deceased that took place on 07-11-2000 at 19-00 hours at Culvert 12/1, outskirts of Katepalli village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP24-T-6117 and auto (autorickshaw) bearing No.AP13-V-8185 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1 - insurance policy. 7. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved of the same, Insurance Company filed this appeal. 8. Heard Sri D.S.N.V. Prasad Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company – appellant, and Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the material on record. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that without there being any material about earnings of the deceased, Tribunal erroneously assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and accordingly awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, which is excessive and exorbitant. 10. There is no serious dispute about the accident and only quantum of compensation is disputed by the Insurance Company as excessive and exorbitant. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal and the question that arises for consideration is whether the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is correct ? 12. Though evidence of PW.1, who is claimant No.1 and elder son of the deceased, is that deceased was doing business and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month, there is no evidence to prove the same. Hence, Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.50/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. Accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.18,000/-, which comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum towards contribution of the deceased to his family, and taking multiplier 11, which is appropriate for the age group of the deceased, who is 52 years as per the postmortem report, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 11). 13. Further, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are not seriously questioned. 14. However, the amount of Rs.1,32,000/- awarded towards loss of dependency is seriously questioned by the Insurance Company. 15. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at a very low level of Rs.1,500/- per month. Even if he was a labourer, he would have definitely earned an amount of Rs.50/- a day even in 2000. Hence, assessment of the Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month can never be said to be excessive or exorbitant. That being so, compensation awarded towards loss of dependency cannot be said to be unreasonable. 16. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also contended that there ought to have been apportionment of the compensation between the vehicles that involved in the accident. This contention also cannot be accepted, as the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence on this aspect. 17. In these circumstances, I see no ground to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same cannot be said to be on higher side, as such, there are no merits to entertain this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 22, 2010. PV