IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A No.1058 of 2011 Between: The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Bhukya Venkanna and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A No.1058 of 2011 JUDGMENT: With the consent of the learned counsel of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.846 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, wherein the claim of Respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records. 4. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein ﬁled the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Bhukya Suresh, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 05.07.2009. Claimants Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, and claimant No.3 is the younger brother of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was traveling in an Auto bearing No.AP-20 W-5634, and when the Auto reached near Nellikudur B.T.Road, a lorry bearing No.AP- 16 X-5797 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the auto, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased, and while the deceased was being taken to MGM Hospital, Warangal, he died. A case in Cr.NO.107/2009 of Mahabubabad P.S. was registered against the driver of the lorry. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 20 years, working as Auto driver, and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant-Insurer ﬁled counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 6. During course of enquiry, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurer, but the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf. 7. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, and accordingly, allowed the claim of the claimants in part. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. This appeal is ﬁled questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal below erred in deducting one- third of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses instead of 50%, and also erred in taking the age of the deceased, instead of age of the mother of the deceased, though the deceased was unmarried. 9. It is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried. Though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as Auto driver, there is no evidence to that eﬀect. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, which is considered to be just and reasonable. However, as the deceased was bachelor, deduction of half is to be made towards personal expenses, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [1]. Similarly, as per the above decision, the age of the mother of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for applying the suitable multiplier for the purpose of estimating the loss of dependency. The age of the mother of the deceased is stated to be 35 years. The appropriate multiplier, as per the above decision, is 16. After deducting half of the income towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.1,500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. When the multiplier 16 is applied, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,88,000/-. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation, payable to the claimants, comes to Rs.2,98,000/-, which can be rounded to Rs.3 lakh. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3 lakh with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of ﬁling of the petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, to the extent, stated above. _________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Dated:05.12.2011 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in one week B/o Dsr [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121