HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4272 of 2003 Between Marthala Ramasubbamma and others v. B. Haribabu Reddy and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4272 of 2003 JUDGMENT: 1) The claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.385 of 2001 in its award dated 10-7-2003 for the death of deceased. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 7-5-2000 when the soil was being transported from the tank bed towards the field of the deceased by about 5 p.m. when the deceased was sitting in the trailor of the tractor the driver driven it in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, and inspite of warning by the deceased the deceased did not reduce the speed and at which time the deceased who in the trailor of the tractor was moving towards the driver at which time, on account of negligent driving of the driver the deceased fell down and wheels of the trailor ran over the deceased causing his instantaneous death. The deceased was an agriculturist and earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum and that on account of sudden and untimely death of the deceased the petitioners who are female members had lost the same and therefore sought for compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-. 3) Before the Tribunal the owner of the tractor and trailor remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of the claimants, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondents therein, by applying the principle of res- ipsa liquitur, rightly so, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailor, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants- claimants contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and cultivating the vast extents of lands, and that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the lesser amount towards the income of the deceased without considering the fact that the deceased being only the male member in the family and he was contributing a lot in the family by cultivating agricultural lands and that the compensation needs to be enhanced. 5) Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 6) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was the only male member in the family, therefore monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3000/-, which annually comes to Rs.36,000/-, out of which if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. By applying the multiplier 13, as per the age of the mother of the deceased being unmarried, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( 2009 (6) SCC 121), the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. The other amounts granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate stands affirmed. 7) Subject to the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Kk/ 15-7-2010 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4272 of 2003 15-7-2010