IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF November TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MICSELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1476 of 2003 Between: Madhukar Deshpande and others … Petitioners And T.Srinivasa Rao and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MICSELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1476 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.2402 of 2000 vide order dated 25.11.2002 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimants are parents and sisters respectively of the deceased Ganesh Madhukar Deshpande, who died on 09.03.2000 due to the accident that occurred on 01.03.2000. The owner of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP12 - 5566 (Old MH-25/4800) involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 01.03.2000 at about 03:30 P.M. while the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.MH13 - 2792 being driven by him along with his father as pillion rider from Nilanga to Sarvsadi, Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-12/5566 (Old MH-25/4800) belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries on 09.03.2000. A case in Crime No.42 of 2000 was registered by the Kasar Sirsi Police Station and investigated into. The deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of his death and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a Medical Prescriptor. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and subsequently enhanced it to Rs.6,00,000/- by way of amendment. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the Ambassador car, who remained ex parte after filing the counter, and respondent No.2, insurance company, which filed its counter separately, denied the case of the claimants and their liability for payment of compensation. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the trial Court: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 01.03.2000 at about 03:30 P.M. was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambassador car bearing No.AP-12/5566 (old MH-25/4800)? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking insurance policy of the ambassador car as Ex.B1, with the consent of the claimants, no oral evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the material available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, the trial Court holding issue No.1 against the respondents and taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards his personal expenses (Rs.4,000/- x 1/3 = Rs.1,333/-), which comes to Rs.2,667/- per month and Rs.32,004/- per annum towards his contribution to his family, taking the age of the mother, who was aged 51 years by that date, of the deceased for computation of the compensation since he died unmarried and applying multiplier ‘11’, which was appropriate for the age group of the mother of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.3,52,044/- (Rs.32,004/- x 11) to the claimants towards loss of dependency, apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,956/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs.3,70,000/- against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment for compensation. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate ? 12. There is no authentic evidence with regard to the income of the deceased or the age of the mother of the deceased, that were taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the compensation. The age of the mother of the deceased was taken on the basis of an old voters list, where her age is shown as 45 in 1994. The age shown in the voters list cannot be taken as authentic one as it was only approximate age. Even with regard to the income of the deceased, neither he was a regular Government servant nor employee of any reputed organization. When there is no authenticity with regard to the employment of the deceased, it is not even known whether he was working as a Medical Prescriptor. Though he was said to be a science graduate, no material is filed in proof of the same. The authenticity of the salary certificate of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.A14, issued by generating on information system is doubtful. However, it can be accepted that even as an ordinary educated person, the deceased could have been earning in the range of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month including enhancement of his income in future. Thus, I am inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. As he was unmarried, if 50% out of his income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to his family comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. If multiplier ‘11’ is applied taking the age of the mother of the deceased as 51 years, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 11). As already referred, there is no authentic evidence with regard to the age of the mother of the deceased also. Considering all the circumstances, a sum of Rs.4,000/- can be awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) can be awarded to the claimants as the same would meet the ends of justice and is accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- awarded by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. The apportionment of the compensation between the claimants shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the trial Court. Claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit. 14. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 29, 2010. lmv