HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3999 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.1235 of 2001 vide order dated 31-10-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimants are wife and minor children of the deceased Nagaraju, who died in the accident that occurred on 08-06-2001. The owner of the dumper involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 08-06-2001 while the deceased took a dumper for loading the same with mines and kept the same aside, another dumper being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. He was working under respondent No.1 - Sree Vishnu Cements Limited, Nalgonda District, as driver of the dumper. He was aged 28 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the dumper involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above dumper, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Dumper No.2? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,88,200/- to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.3,50,000/- against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inadequate ? 12. Coming to the question of the age of the deceased, there is no authentic evidence with regard to the same. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of his death. It is difficult to believe the same, as the age of the wife of the deceased is shown to be 27 years and among rural folks the age difference between the spouses would be even more than ten years. Hence, on the basis of the age of the wife of the deceased and ages of their children, who are shown to be aged 9 and 5 years respectively, I am assessing the age of the deceased as 35 years. For the age group of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1], is ‘16’. 13. Coming to the question of the income of the deceased, he was said to be driver of the dumper belonging to respondent No.1. Even according to the Tribunal, the deceased was a technical person and on that basis his income was taken at Rs.1,200/- per month. However, since the claimants got marked the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A-6 issued by respondent No.1 itself showing that his salary was Rs.2,100/- per month and the deceased was a technical person, I am inclined to take his income as Rs.2,000/- per month and further I am inclined to add 25% out of the same to it towards enhancement of his future earning capacity. Thus, I am inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. 14. Accordingly, if 1/3rd out of his monthly income of Rs.2,500/- (Rs.2,500/- x 1/3 = Rs.833/-) is deducted towards his personal expenses, the net contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.1,667/- (Rs.2,500/- - Rs.833/-) per month and Rs.20,004/- (Rs.1,667/- x 12) per annum. If the annual contribution of the deceased is capitalized with multiplier ‘16’, the loss of dependency alone comes to Rs.3,20,064/- (Rs.20,004 x 16) and the same is rounded off to Rs.3,20,000/-. Further, another sum of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the claimants under other heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty five thousand only). Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.1,88,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/-. The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. 15. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 alone are equally entitled to the entire enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,800/- and the same shall be kept in fixed deposits on their names in a nationalized bank till they become majors. Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the fixed deposits of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and appropriate the same for their welfare till they attain majority. The apportionment of the compensation of Rs.1,88,200/-, awarded by the Tribunal, between the claimants, its withdrawal by them and the rate of interest on the same shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. 16. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 30, 2010. PV [1] 2009(6) SCC 121