THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A No.3829 of 2003 Date:21.01.2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., though its Branch Manager, Kamareddy. ……….. Appellant. And N.Kamala Bai and others. ……. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A No.3829 of 2003 ORDER: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-objections are filed by the claimants/dependants on the deceased who died in motor accident on 5.1.1998 involving tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 25 D 1915 and AP 25 D 4475, which were insured with the appellant. As against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad by award dated 22.5.2003 in O.P.No.58 of 1998 awarded total compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. In these appeal and cross-objections, there is no dispute about the factum of accident and about the accident resulting due to rash and negligent driving the tractor and trailer by its driver. The deceased-N.Govind was traveling in the trailer as labourer under its owner. The liability is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. Even though P.W.1/wife of the deceased stated that the deceased was aged 23 years. As per postmortem certificate, apparent age of the deceased shown as 25 years. The lower Tribunal selected ‘17’ as the multiplier for that age. According to P.W.1 as well as evidence of P.W.2 the deceased was getting income of Rs.100/- per day towards wages as agricultural cooly. The lower Tribunal adopted the said amount as his daily income. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Tribunal should have taken minimum wage prescribed by relevant notification as income of the deceased when there is no valid proof of his income. Even an agricultural labourer will not go for cooly work on all 30 days in a month and will not get work for all 365 days in a year. Therefore, the lower Tribunal should have estimated income of the deceased per month by calculating his wages for 25 days in a month. There is no material on record to show minimum wages payable to an agricultural labourer in the locality where the deceased resided. In the circumstances, the lower Tribunal should not have accepted the income as per the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 as gospel truth. I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.75/- per day can be taken as wages for an agricultural labourer during the year 1998. If income of the deceased is calculated at the rate of Rs.75/- per day for 25 days in a month, then his annual income comes to Rs.22,500/-. The lower Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure. The claimants are five in number and they are wife, both parents and two minor children. Therefore, the lower Tribunal should have deducted 1/4 income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure as per Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] of the Supreme Court. As per the same decision of the Supreme Court, multiplier for the age of 23 years or 25 years is 18. On such calculation, pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.3,03,750/-. Apart from that, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Instead of the head of love and affection, I propose to rename it as loss of estate. Total non- pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.35,000/-. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.3,38,750/- which is just and proper. In the result, compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is altered from Rs.4,43,000/- to Rs.3,38,750/-. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Date:21.01.2011 mrb [1] 2009 6 SCC 121