THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1017 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 04.03.2005, passed in O.P.No.1132 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellants-claimants 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter respectively, of one V. Mallaiah, who succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.01.2003 at about 2.30 PM, near Ramachandrapuram bus stop, due to hit by a lorry bearing No.AP 28 U 9659 on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased was aged 55 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month as a Maistry at the time of the accident. The claimants filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-payable by respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. By the award impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-to claimant No.1 and Rs.72,000/-to claimant No.2 payable by the respondents jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Briz Mohan Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken meager amount of Rs.2,000/-as monthly income of the deceased and thereby granted less compensation to the claimants and thus, he prays to enhance the compensation. 5. As per the evidence of P.W.1-wife, the deceased Mallaiah was aged 55 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- as Maistry and contribute his entire earnings to his family. Since the accident occurred in the year 2003, the deceased might have earned a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. As such, it would be appropriate to assess his monthly income at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month instead of Rs.2000/-per month as taken by the Tribunal. If 1/3rd from it is deducted towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.2,000/- per month and annual income at Rs.24,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was 55 years as per Ex.A4-post mortem report, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], is ‘11’. Then, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000x11= Rs.2,64,000/-. As the deceased was treated at Apollo Hospital, Madras, where he later died, some amount towards transportation, medicines etc., had necessarily spent by his family members. As such, a sum of Rs.60,000/-is awarded under that head. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium are also awarded. In total, a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- is awarded to the claimants. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,72,000/- to Rs.3,44,000/-. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 6. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:21.10.2010 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121