HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3475 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.279 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was made consequent on the death of the deceased Raja Reddy in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, on 13.10.1998 when the deceased was going in the bus bearing No.AP 13 T 8586, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, accident was occurred, in which the deceased received injuries and died. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running a medical and fancy shop. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company and they are jointly liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent filed a counter contending that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and there is no rashness and negligence. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioners to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, nature of injuries received by the deceased and cause of his death. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal accepted the cause of accident and granted a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 6. POINT: There is no dispute about the cause of death of the deceased or the age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was running a medical shop but the lower Tribunal has not considered this aspect and has fixed the income at Rs.1,500/- per month, which is very low and the application of the multiplier of the lower Tribunal is also not proper. 7. As can be seen from the material on record, as per Exs.A.11 to A.16, it is clear that the deceased was running a medical shop and was also having a licence to run a medical shop. Though there may not be any accounts to substantiate the above fact, the fixing of the income at Rs.1,500/- per month appears to be on a lower side and I feel the ends of justice would meet if the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.1,800/- per month and since there are more dependants 1/4th is deducted towards his personal expenditure. Then monthly contribution comes to Rs.1,200/- per month and the annual contribution comes to Rs.14,400/-. Since the age of the deceased is said to be 35 years, the multiplier that has to be applied is ‘16’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. After applying the multiplier, the total loss of dependency, to which the petitioners will be entitled to, is Rs.2,30,400/-. Apart from it, the petitioners will be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as granted by the lower Tribunal. The total compensation comes to Rs.2,62,400/-, which is rounded up to Rs.2,65,000/-. Accordingly, the award is modified and the appeal is allowed. The interest shall be at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:14.12.2011 INL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298