THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 754 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 01-08-2007 in O.P No. 1326 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The claimants are the appellants. They filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Veeraswamy Goud (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an accident. The first appellant is the wife and appellants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. They pleaded that the deceased was a Toddy Tapper and by doing toddy business he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. On 02.05.2005 at about 01.45 hours, while the deceased, his relatives and others were travelling in Tata Spacio Gold vehicle bearing No.AP-28- BB-7644 towards Hyderabad and when they reached the village limits of Domadugu, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same with high speed, rashly and negligently, due to which the said vehicle turned turtle and the deceased and two of his relatives died on the spot and others received grievous injuries. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framed the points as to whether the accident resulting in the death of Veeraswamy Goud occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Spacio Gold bearing No.AP-28-BB-7644 and whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?. On behalf of the appellants, PW 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked and Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked on behalf of the second respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P in part and awarded Rs.3,52,000/- towards compensation. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,500/- per month as the earnings of the deceased which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and in the absence of any contra evidence produced by the respondents, it can be notionally taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and in my view the same would meet the ends of justice. In Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. Hence, after deducting one-fourth amount as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case loss of earnings would come to Rs.27,000/- per annum (Rs.3,000X12x1/4). The relevant multiplier for the age of 40 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is “15” and if the same is applied, loss of earnings comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rs.27,000X15). A further sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which the appellants are entitled to comes to Rs.4,25,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,52,000/- to Rs.4,25,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.03.2011 va [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129