THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2429 of 2003 Dated 23rd September, 2010 Between: Daravath Kousalya and 4 others …Appellants And B.Anjaiah and another …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: ---- Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vutla The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award, dated 31-03-2003, in M.V.O.P.No.878 of 2001, on the file of the Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). I have heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- United India Insurance Company Limited. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The claimants in the OP are the appellants, who filed this appeal feeling partly aggrieved by the above- mentioned award. Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are children and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of one Yakya, who died in a motor accident involving jeep bearing registration No.AP 12 B 8083, belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. As against the claim of Rs.4 lakhs made by the appellants, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,600/- in all. The only issue raised in this appeal and canvassed by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting a paltry sum of Rs.1,000/- per month as the income of the deceased apart from deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th therefrom towards his personal contribution. Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2- United India Insurance Company Limited sought to justify the impugned award. Undoubtedly, the appellants have failed to place before the Tribunal any evidence in support of their plea that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.50,000/- per anum. Therefore, the Tribunal has treated the deceased as an agricultural coolie and presumed that he would have been earning Rs.30/- per day. In my opinion, even if the Tribunal was justified in treating the deceased as an agricultural coolie, taking Rs.30/- as the daily income of the deceased was quite inappropriate because it should have taken a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum in the absence of any evidence taking the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), which applies to the compensation claimed under Section 163-A of the Act as a guide. Accordingly, the income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum instead of at Rs.12,000/- per annum, as was done by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that as the deceased has left behind five dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. This submission of the learned Counsel stands supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] wherein the apex Court held that in cases where the deceased was married, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. In view of the same, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified in the following terms: 1. The annual income of the deceased must be computed at Rs.15,000/-; 2. His personal expenses should be deducted at 1/4th of his income and; 3. The enhanced compensation should carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the claim petition. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Tribunal shall, accordingly, re-compute the compensation awarded to the appellants in terms of this judgment. As a sequel, CMP.No.13482 of 2003 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd September, 2010 lur [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)