HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL No.715 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award in O.P. No.822 of 1999 dated 27-11-2000 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum - V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 09-05-1999 at about 5-00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle on the left side of the road, near the Hospital of Dr. Shankar in Bhongir Town, Scooter of respondent No.1, driven by its rider in the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, deceased fell down and sustained fracture of skull and while shifting to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, died on the way. Claimants, who are wife, daughter, sister and parents of the deceased, filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the scooter, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – United Indian Insurance Company, which is insurer of the scooter, filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether Mohd. Khalid Hameed Ahmed died in a scooter accident on 09-05-1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s scooter driver or due to his rash and negligent driving or due to the composite negligence of both ? 2. Whether the petitioners (claimants) are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 4. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, insurance policy, with consent. 5. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,72,000/- i.e., Rs.6,40,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss to the estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges of the dead body and other incidental expenses. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 6. Heard Sri P. Ramakrsihna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Smt. P. Niveditha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - owner of the scooter and Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - the insurance company and perused the impugned award and the material made available on record. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inappropriate, as it ought to have awarded the entire amount claimed by them and that in view of the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court, where the dependants are more than four, only 1/4th of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and ought to have added certain amount towards enhancement in future earning capacity of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the deceased was shown to be a correspondent in a private School and he was not holding any permanent job, as such, there was no possibility for adding anything towards enhancement in future income of the deceased and that even his income at Rs.5,000/- per month, as taken by the Tribunal, is erroneous as he was not holding any permanent job and he could be removed at any time. 10. Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is appropriate ? 11. It is a case, where the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Correspondent – cum – Teacher and the Tribunal accepted the same and there is no appeal by the insurance company. The deceased was a graduate and holding a diploma in Computer Sciences. He owned a motorcycle on which he was proceeding at the time of accident. Hence, it can be reasonably accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 12. Accordingly, if 1/4th of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, as there are more than four dependants, contribution to his family comes to Rs.3,750/- per month and Rs.45,000/- per annum and if the same is capitalized with multiplier 16, as the deceased was 29 years at the time of his death, loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,20,000/-. Apart from loss of dependency, as awarded by the Tribunal, claimants are also entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss to the estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and funeral expenses etc., for which there is no dispute. 13. In the circumstances, even without adding anything towards enhancement in future income of the deceased, claimants are entitled to more than the compensation claimed by them. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation claimed by them i.e., Rs.7,50,000/-. However, in view of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, rate of interest can be reduced to 6% per annum from 12% and it is accordingly reduced to 6% per annum from the date of petition. The apportionment of the enhanced compensation also shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. It is also directed that the amount of enhanced compensation shall be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank and the claimants shall be paid interest thereon every month. Claimant Nos.1, 4 & 5 can withdraw 50% of their respective shares in the enhanced compensation only after two years from today and the remaining 50% one year thereafter. With regard to claimant No.2, who is minor daughter of the deceased, withdrawal of the amount shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 30, 2010. PV