IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.523 of 2003 Between: Chukka @ Sukka Balakistamma and 2 others .. Appellants AND G. Subash and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 26-3-2002 in O.P.No.424 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda passed in pursuance of the common order in O.P.No.423 of 2001 and batch. The deceased and injured involved in the batch cases were coming in the jeep No.AP-11-E-8891 on 28-01-2001 and the jeep dashed against a neem tree due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. The wife and children of Chukka Balakistaiah filed O.P.No.424 of 2001 for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- claiming that Balakistaiah, aged 45 years, was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as an agriculturist. While the owner of the jeep remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the case claiming that the allegations of the claimants are not admitted and the compensation claimed is excessive. During the joint enquiry conducted in all the cases arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal framed common issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common order concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep based on Ex.A.1-First Information Report and the oral evidence. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable in O.P.No.424 of 2001, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month and the contribution to the family at Rs.600/- per month. Applying a multiplier 10, it assessed loss of dependency at Rs.72,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs on the compensation and also directed the apportionment of the compensation. The claimants challenged the award in this appeal contending that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and a higher multiplier ought to have been applied. Sri Gade Venkat Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Venkataram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Somasekhar, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer are heard, while none appeared for the 1st respondent. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the jeep for the accident with his rashness and negligence in driving stood unchallenged and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimants cannot be in dispute. It is only the quantum that needs to be determined herein. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased being not in dispute, the deceased must have undoubtedly occupied himself in some gainful employment or avocation to maintain himself, his wife and two sons and could not have been an unemployed person. Even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time would not have been as low as Rs.900/- per month. The statute itself recognizes that even non-earning persons can be considered to be earning Rs.15,000/-p.a. and at least the principle of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could have been the basis for the Tribunal, even if it believed that there is no reliable evidence about the earnings of the deceased. If the same is taken as the basis and 1/3rd of the same were to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the actual loss of dependency will be Rs10,000/-. The deceased was stated to be aged 45 years, which claim finds further corroboration from Ex.A.2-Inquest report and Ex.A.3-Post Mortem report. For the age of 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable will be 14 according to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. If so, the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency alone would be Rs.1,40,000/-, while the claimants also will be entitled to have Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium according to the same decision. While the claimants would have been thus entitled to a minimum of Rs.1,60,000/-, their claim is confined by them before the Tribunal and herein also to Rs.1,50,000/- only, which has to be allowed. However, in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion, the same can be limited to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs have to be granted on the enhanced compensation. In the result, the award dated 26-03-2002 in O.P.No.424 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by granting further compensation of Rs.53,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The enhanced portion of the compensation also shall be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298