*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2813 of 2003 % Dated: 21-10-2010 # Kanna Suryanarayana (died) & others. … Appellants VERSUS $ Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. … Respondent ! Counsel for the appellants : Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar ^ Counsel for the respondent: Sri Mohd. Arif Valli for Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. 2009 (3) ALD 83 SC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2813 of 2003 Between: Kanna Suryanarayana (died) & others. ..... Appellants AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar Counsel for the respondent: Sri Mohd. Arif Valli for Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2813 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The legal representatives of the deceased Suryanarayana, a car driver, who died in an accident involving the vehicle of the respondent Corporation, filed this civil miscellaneous appeal feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Guntur (for short, “the Tribunal”) by its award dated 03.04.2003 in O.P.No.596 of 1999. The deceased met with the fatal accident on 01.06.1999 while driving a car. The father of the deceased, who was claimant No.1 and his widow and three children, who were respondent Nos.2 to 5 respectively, have filed the abovementioned O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has, however, awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- comprising Rs.90,000/- as loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. At the hearing, Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal has made an erroneous assessment of the loss of income of the deceased by taking only the notional income, ignoring the oral evidence of appellant No.2, who was examined as PW.1 that her husband was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submitted that the age of the deceased being 45 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier that should have been adopted is 14 and instead the Tribunal has taken into consideration the multiplier of 9. Sri Mohd. Arif Valli representing Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Corporation, opposed the above contentions and sought to sustain the award except to the extent of award of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium. The learned counsel submitted that in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court has held that the claimants in a case of death are entitled to Rs.20,000/- in all towards the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium @ Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- only under two heads i.e., loss of estate and consortium. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With regard to the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum ignoring the oral evidence of PW.1. While mere ipse dixit of a witness regarding the income cannot be taken as conclusive proof, still the Tribunal cannot ignore the ground reality that even in the year 1999, the driver of a car would have been earning a minimum wage of Rs.50/- per day, which will come to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Accordingly, I hold that the income of the deceased should be assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the age of the deceased is between 41 and 45, the relevant multiplier is 14. The Tribunal has adopted only 9 as the multiplier. This requires to be modified. It is represented by both the parties that on a re-calculation of the loss of dependency by adopting the above parameters, the sum comes to Rs.1,68,000/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court held that the total amount payable under all the three heads, namely; loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium should not exceed Rs.20,000/-. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- under two heads, namely; loss of estate and consortium. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded in excess of what the appellants are entitled to receive. Out of the sum of Rs.1,68,000/-, the sum of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be deducted. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to receive the total compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- i.e., Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of income + Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified and the appellants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.10.2010 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 SC