THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.512 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants against the decree and order dated 28.06.2001 in O.P.No.358 of 1999 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. Legal representatives of the deceased are the claimants. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: On 03.05.1999 the deceased along with other officials was going in a jeep bearing No.MH 33 9202 on official work on Hyderabad- Siddipet road near Ponnal village, a lorry bearing No.ADD/3999 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, as a result, the deceased died. He was aged about 32 years and working as a typist in Mandal Office, Kondapak. His salary was Rs.5,218/- per month. First petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. First respondent is the owner of the lorry and second respondent is its insurer. Third respondent is the owner of the jeep and fourth respondent is the insurer of the jeep. Respondents filed counter disputing the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.ADD/3999 and Jeep MH 9202 and the deceased A.Srinivasa Rao died in the said accident? 2. Whether the lorry ADD/3999 and the Jeep MH 33 9202 were insured with R-2 and R-4 respectivbely on the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are only the L.Rs. of the deceased? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 policy was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-. Questioning the quantum, the present appeal is filed by the appellants-petitioners. 4. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal and enhancing the compensation? 5. While granting compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- the tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.5,435/- per month and there were deductions of Rs.1179/-. On the basis of that, the contribution to the family can be fixed at Rs.2,000/- and by applying multiplier ‘15’ granted compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, as per Ex.A10 the revised salary of the deceased was Rs.6321/- and that the appropriate multiplier would be ‘16’. Even assuming that the salary of the deceased is Rs.5,435/- also, at least 25% has to be added towards enhancement of future earnings and from out of that, only 25% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are ‘4’. In that event, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,892/- per month and that even multiplier ‘15’ is applied, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of more than Rs.7 lakhs claimed. 7. As the total monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5218/-, if 25% towards enhancement of future earnings is added, it comes to Rs.6,522/- from out of that 1/4th i.e. Rs.1,630/- is deducted, monthly contribution comes to Rs.4,892/- and annual contribution comes to Rs.58,704/-. If the multiplier ‘15’ applied, the total comes to more than Rs.8 lakhs. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- and the rate of interest on the enhanced amount shall be at 7.5% per annum only. The apportionment shall be in the same ratio as awarded by the Court below for the amount already granted. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 2nd July 2010, Rns