THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.1354 of 2000 JUDGMENT: P.Munirathnam Naidu, husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and son of appellant No.4, was proceeding on a scooter bearing No. AP 03 5985 on 06.08.1992 on Chittoor-Chandragiri main road. At about 8.00 p.m., near Jakkalavaripalle Village, a lorry bearing No. ATN 9, owned by S.Srinivasulu Naidu, who is no more and represented by his legal representatives, respondent Nos.1 to 4, and insured with respondent No.5, United India Insurance Company Limited, is said to have hit him coming in the opposite direction. Munirathnam Naidu is said to have died on 28.08.1992 while undergoing treatment. The appellants stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the business in wine shop, rice mill and agriculture and that he was aged 42 years at that time. A sum of Rs.80,000/- is said to have been incurred for treatment. They filed M.V.O.P.No.46 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.5,16,000/-. Later on, the claim was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 remained ex parte. Respondent No.5 alone contested the matter. It filed a counter denying its liability. It seriously disputed the occurrence of the accident and income of the deceased. Through order, dated 28.02.2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,918/- and apportioned the same among the respondents. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded. The appellants seek enhancement of the same. Heard Sri B.Rajendra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. On behalf of the appellants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A23 were filed. The documents produced by the Excise Department in relation to the licence held by the deceased were filed as Ex.X1 to X7. On behalf of respondent No.5, no evidence was adduced. The occurrence of accident and the death of the deceased on account of the injuries received therein are proved beyond any doubt by filing Exs.A1 to A4, F.I.R. in Crime No.95 of 1992 of Chandragiri Police Station, inquest report, post-mortem and charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 1993 respectively. The Tribunal also held that the death occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the plea of the appellants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month was not believed. The Tribunal did recognise the fact that the deceased was doing business in excise and rice, but on the ground that he incurred losses in the business, treated his income as Rs.600/- per month. By any standard, that is too meagre. Once a person is found, or shown as doing business, the fact that he incurred loss just before the accident cannot be a factor to hold that he was not deriving any income at all. What becomes material in adjudicating the claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act”) is the capability and potential of the person and not his exact income alone. This Court is of the view that the income of the deceased can safely be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month from all the sources. If one-third is deducted towards his personal expenditure, the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.24,000/- per year. The deceased was aged 42 years. The multiplier applicable to a person of that age as per Schedule II of the Act is ‘15’. The resultant figure would be Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 and a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection. That amount needs to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. Hence, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and ninety thousand only) in all. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal would apply to the enhanced amount also. The entire amount would carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the M.V.O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.12.2011. kdl