IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2494 of 2001 Between: Yata Lingamma and others .. Appellants AND G. Durga Prasad and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.161 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 13-06-2000. The claim was made by the legal representatives of the deceased Somaiah against the owner and insurer of the lorry AHT 7299, the rash and negligent driving of which resulted in the death of the deceased by falling under its wheels on 19-11-1996 at about 8.30 A.M. near Pillalamarri bus stage. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the children and the 5th claimant is the mother of the deceased Somaiah, who was the sole bread winner for the family and due to his sudden death, the family lost the income of Rs.3,500/- per month, which Somaiah was earning as a mason and as an agriculturist. Respondents 1 and 2 were claimed to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and denying any rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the lorry driver. The claimants were put to strict proof of all the allegations relating to the deceased and the insurer claimed that the insurance of the vehicle and valid driving licence of the driver have to be strictly proved by the claimants. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to any compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 during enquiry. It marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal, firstly relying upon the eye-witness account of PW.2 corroborated by Ex.A.1-report given to the police and the Tribunal concluded further supported by Ex.A.2-Charge sheet that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased was also accepted and the Tribunal considered the deceased to be a labourer, who can be presumed to be earning Rs.1,200/- per month. The age of the deceased was taken as 42 years as stated in the Post Mortem report and after deducting 1/3rd out of the notional income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family was fixed at Rs.9,600/- per annum. After application of 14 as the multiplier, the loss of income was estimated at Rs.1,34,400/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant apart from Rs.1,000/- towards funeral expenses. The claimants were thus held entitled to Rs.1,45,400/- from both the respondents in view of the subsisting insurance policy-Ex.B.1 and future interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs also were directed to be paid by the respondents. The claimants preferred the present appeal contending that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month and was contributing not less than Rs.2,500/- per month to the family. The appropriate multiplier would have been 18 and loss of consortium should have been compensated with Rs.30,000/-, while pain and suffering should have been compensated with another Rs.30,000/- awarding the total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard and none appeared for the 1st respondent. The point for consideration is what is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled? The findings of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry being the cause for the accident, the relationship of the deceased with the claimants and the subsisting insurance of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent have not been challenged and the said findings have become final making the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay adequate and just compensation to the claimants. The only question left is the quantum of compensation and the Tribunal arrived at a notional income of Rs.1,200/- per month for the deceased and as the wife-PW.1 did not place any evidence in corroboration of her claims that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day as mason, her own admission that he is going for labour work on that day was taken as the basis for presuming the deceased to be a labourer and the notional income calculated by the Tribunal was not shown to be in any way less than the minimum wages that would have been paid to such labourers at the relevant time. The age of the deceased was also rightly taken by the Tribunal as 42 years based on the Post Mortem report in the absence of any clinching evidence in that regard and the estimated loss of support for the family assessed at Rs.1,34,400/- by the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be considered to be inadequate or unreasonable. Further, insofar as the funeral expenses are concerned, the Tribunal was too conservative in awarding only Rs.1,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- would have been proper in that regard. Similarly, the Tribunal did not grant any sums towards loss of estate, which is generally compensated by a quantum of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal also did not award any compensation towards loss of love and affection for the children and the mother of the deceased and the claimants 2 to 5 can be safely considered to be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each under that head, and therefore, enhancing the compensation by Rs.34,000/- would be reasonable and just and would meet the claim of the claimants under all the permissible heads of damages that can be awarded to them. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly and the enhanced portion of the compensation should carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. In the result, the award dated 13-06-2000 in O.P.No.161 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by enhancing the compensation already awarded by another Rs.34,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs on the said sum of enhanced compensation and no further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time and the appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-08-2010 Ksn