THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1905 OF 2006 DATED: 23-10-2009 Between: C.Chengalrayulu & another. ..... APPELLANTS And T.Shakunthala & 3 another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 29-07-2005, in O.P.No.171 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.77,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Lakshmamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08-08-2002. Claimants are the children of the deceased. According to them, on that day while the deceased was crossing the road for taking drinking water near Kapugunneri bus stop on Srikalahasti-Tirupati main road, a jeep bearing No.AP 03 V 4484, driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment. 4. 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the claimants, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 03 V 4484 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for recovery of total compensation of Rs.77,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the award, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants- appellants would submit that the deceased was aged sixty years as seen from Ex.A3-inquest report and Ex.A4- wound certificate and the suitable multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) is ‘8’ but the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as ‘5’. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the Tribunal has failed to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses from out of the notional income of Rs.15,000/-. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep is not disputed and therefore the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 10. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, to what amount ? 11. The deceased was stated to be an agricultural coolie. In the absence of any evidence regarding the income, the Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. for estimating loss of dependency. The Tribunal however failed to deduct 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses. When the same is deducted as per the Second Schedule of the Act, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.10,000/- p.a. As per Exs.A3 and 4 the deceased was aged 60 years by the date of the accident. The suitable multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Act is ‘8’, but not ‘5’. Applying the said multiplier of ‘8’ to the contribution of the deceased in a sum of Rs.10,000/- the loss of dependency works out to Rs.80,000/- ( Rs.10,000/- X 8). The claimants are therefore entitled for compensation of Rs.80,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.2000/- making it a total amount of Rs.82,000/- ( Rs.80,000/- + Rs.2000/-) with interest @ 9% from the date of the petition and at the same rate on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd October, 2009. Tsy