IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.775 of 2003 & CROSS OBJECTIONS IN C.M.A.No.775 of 2003 DATE:20.01.2011 Between: Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nizamabad …… Appellant And Gondela Vijaya and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.775 of 2003 & CROSS OBJECTIONS IN C.M.A.No.775 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insurance company and cross objections are filed by the claimants/dependants of the deceased who died in motor accident on 27.07.2000. There is no dispute about factum of accident and the accident taking place due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle. The dispute herein is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad in O.P.No.1094 of 2000 by award dated 02.09.2002. The lower Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,64,500/- to the claimants. The lower Tribunal arrived at income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and selected 18 as multiplier for the age of 30 years of the deceased and determined pecuniary compensation. Apart from that, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- towards funereal expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. 2) In so far as the appeal filed by the insurance company is concerned, at the outset it has to be stated that the appeal is not maintainable in law since the appellant/insurance company did not obtain necessary permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the lower Tribunal at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the appeal fails. 3) The counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants contends that as per Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], dependency of the claimants on the deceased has to be taken as 3/4 of income of the deceased by deducting only 1/4 of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses because there are 5 claimants. The claimants are wife, mother and three minor children of the deceased. At the same time, as per Sarla Verma, for the age of 30 years of the deceased, the proper multiplier is 17 and not 18. If Sarla Verma has to be applied in this case, then it has to be applied on all aspects of the case and it cannot be applied in a scuttled manner. Further, for income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, there is no factual basis. Though the deceased was pleaded to be an agriculturist and vegetable vendor, there is no proof therefor on either count by way of any documents. In the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the avocation as well as income of the deceased, income of the deceased has to be assessed as unskilled labourer taking the prescribed minimum wage for such unskilled labourer for 25 days in a month. If income of the deceased is taken as Rs.64/- per day as per minimum wages, then his monthly income becomes Rs.1,600/- . If the pecuniary compensation is calculated at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month as income of the deceased with multiplier of 17 deducting 1/4 share as personal expenses, then it comes to an amount far less than Rs.4,32,000/- determined by the lower Tribunal as pecuniary compensation. Since appeal of the insurance company is not maintainable, outer limit of compensation cannot be altered by this Court to a sum less than Rs.4,64,500/- which is inclusive of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensations. In that view of the matter, I do not propose to alter the compensation amount in these proceedings and maintain the compensation amount. 4) In the result, the appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 19, 2011 ksh [1] (2009)6 SCC 121