IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 2395 of 1998 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 1068 of 1996 dated 10/07/1998 on the file of the court of thePrincipal District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B.Nagar) Between: Vazeer Venkatamma W/o. Late V. Sathaiah, H.No. 2-124 Lingojiguda Vg. Saroornagar Mandal R.R. Dt. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K. Jagdish Kumar S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. 16-11-740/5/1/23 Dilsukhnagar Hyd. 2 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Div. Manager DO-VI, Charma Buildings, Gunfoundary., Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.BADRI.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.P.GOPAL DAS The Court delivered the following Judment: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2395 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the claimant who is the mother of the deceased. 2. In the accident dated 03.11.1996, when the deceased was proceeding on the scooter, the offending lorry (tipper) bearing No. ABT 3469 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased travelling on scooter. On account of the said accident, the deceased suffered multiple injuries and later died. The police registered Cr.No.581 of 1996 against the driver of the offending lorry for rash and negligent driving. The mother of the deceased had filed the compensation case in O.P.No.1068 of 1996 before the Tribunal below. It was claimed in the said O.P. that the deceased was a mason-cum-labourer and earning Rs.3,600/- per month. His mark sheet of VII class-Ex.A8 was produced apart from his S.S.C. certificate- Ex.A9 and Ex.A10-Provisional degree course certificate. It appears that the deceased appeared for LAWCET also in the year 1996, which is evidenced by Ex.A11. The evidence with regard to the earning of the deceased was, however, not produced and based on the said evidence, the Tribunal below found that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent driving and assessed the dependency of the deceased as Rs.650/- treating him as labourer earning Rs.1,000/- per month. In view of the fact that the age of the claimant/mother is 45 years as stated in the petition, but treating it as 50 years Tribunal below applied multiplier 8 and arrived at a total dependency at Rs.62,400/-. To the said sum a conventional sum of Rs.15,000/- was added towards loss of estate and an aggregate compensation of Rs.77,400/- was awarded. Since the claim of petitioner for Rs.2,00,000/- was not allowed by the Tribunal below, this appeal is preferred by the claimant to the extent of disallowed claim. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was academically a very bright student and his life has been cut short on account of the unfortunate accident. The deceased apart from pursuing his education was also working as a mason-cum-labour contractor, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below as labourer is not justified. He also contends that, even, if the age of the mother is taken as 50 years as held by the Tribunal below the multiplier of 8 is not justified and as per the second schedule appeal the multiplier of 13 had to be applied. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contend that there is no evidence to support the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.3,600/- per month and in the absence of any evidence the earnings of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal below is justified. He also contends that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal below as per the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif[1], as such, warrants no interference in this appeal. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. So far as the finding of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle is concerned, the same is not in controversy, as there is no appeal by the insurance company. To the extent of the quantum of compensation, the fact that deceased was working on his own is not disputed, as PW.1, the claimant/mother has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,600/- per month and even in the cross-examination she has stated that the deceased was doing labour contract work, however, she could not give the details of his work. PW.2 is an eyewitness to the accident and his evidence is not relevant for the purpose of assessing the quantum of compensation. However, it cannot be disputed that in the inquest report the occupation of the deceased was mentioned as business and it has to be accepted that the deceased was earning at least Rs.1,000/- per month. Keeping that in view, the annual earnings would be Rs.12,000/- per year and by deducting 1/3rd thereof towards his personal expenses, the dependency per year would work out to Rs.8,000/- per year. The said earnings of the deceased being less than Rs.40,000/- per year, the multiplier under the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can be applied to the age of the claimant, which the Tribunal below has assessed as 50 years. The appropriate multiplier, therefore, would be ‘13’ and on applying the same, the compensation of total dependency would work out to Rs.1,04,000/-. In addition to the above, the claimant shall be entitled to a conventional sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate as already granted by the Tribunal below. 7. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed in part by enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal below from Rs.62,400/- to Rs.1,04,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The award of the Tribunal below stands modified accordingly. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.08.2009 MD [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137