THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.1441 of 2000 JUDGMENT: B.Subba Rao, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, was proceeding on a bicycle from Banswada to Tirumalapur on 18.09.1992. It is stated that a tempo van bearing No. AP 11/177, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1, is said to have dashed against Subba Rao, resulting in injuries. Crime No.15 of 1993 was registered by the Police Station concerned. Subba Rao filed O.P.No.609 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation for the injuries received by him. During the pendency of the O.P., he died. His legal representatives, the appellants herein, were brought on record. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed counter. It had disputed the very occurrence of the accident and other facts pleaded in the O.P. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 09.07.1996. Hence, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2. This Court finds that the Tribunal has adopted an inconsistent and cynical approach while adjudicating the O.P. The oral evidence comprised of the depositions of P.W.1, appellant No.1 herein, and P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident. The appellants filed Exs.A1 to A14. That included the first information report, requisition of Medical Officer, another first information report after the injured died, the record of treatment, etc. Respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence at all. A specific finding was given by the Tribunal to the effect that an accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents. While deciding Issue No.2, pertaining to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal was so inconsistent and cynical in approach that one just cannot understand as to what its thinking was. By pointing out certain irrelevant reasons, such as that the admission register of the deceased in the hospital was not produced, an indication is given as though nothing whatever has happened to Subba Rao. In spite of meticulous reading of the order, sentence by sentence on Issue No.2, one cannot make out as to what was the finding of the Tribunal, about the impact of the accident upon Subba Rao. The Tribunal disbelieved the version of the appellants that the deceased died on account of injuries on the ground that the F.I.R. was registered under Section 337 I.P.C. It failed to take into account Ex.A3, F.I.R. that was registered on the eve of the death of Subba Rao. The objective underlying a social security measure was totally defeated on account of the casual and callous attitude of the Presiding Officer. Once the occurrence of accident is not disputed and the person, who received injuries in it, died, the inescapable conclusion is that the legal representatives are entitled to be paid compensation. Obviously because the Tribunal bestowed its attention in searching for an excuse to dismiss the O.P., the evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased was not taken into account at all. Though the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, it is felt that the evidence may not be available at this length of time and that it can be decided by applying the factors mentioned in Schedule II of the Act. Schedule II of the Act directs that if no evidence as to the income of an individual is forthcoming, it can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per year. The same can be adopted in respect of the deceased. If one-third is deducted towards his personal expenditure, the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.10,000/- per year. Though the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years, the fact that he has a fairly grown up son i.e. appellant No.2 herein, would indicate that his age would not have been less than 40 years. The multiplier applicable for a person of 40 years under Schedule II of the Act is ‘16’. The resultant figure would be Rs.1,60,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/- needs to be awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure and loss of estate. Respondent No.1 did not dispute the existence of insurance policy and no evidence whatever was adduced by it. The record discloses that the O.P. was filed for a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the original claimant. Except that the legal representatives were brought on record, no further amendments were carried out. Hence, the appeal is allowed awarding a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. Out of it, appellant No.1 would be entitled to be paid Rs.1,00,000/- including consortium payable to her and appellant Nos.2 and 3 a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The appellants shall be entitled to receive the compensation only on payment of Court fee on Rs.1,00,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.12.2011. kdl