THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2036 OF 2005 Dated: 18-11-2010 Between: Wadapally Vijayalaxmi and three others ... APPELLANT AND Bommidi Ranga Reddy and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2036 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 01-02-2005 in O.P No. 345 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda. The claimants are the appellants. They filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Wadapalli Ravi in an accident. The first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the children and the fourth appellant is the mother of the deceased. They pleaded that the deceased was an auto driver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 31-01-2003, at about 10.30 pm while he was travelling in the auto along with some others, lorry bearing No. AP 11 W 6799 driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed by its driver dashed against the auto causing his death on the spot. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the point as to whether the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the rash, negligent and high speed driving of lorry AP 11 W 6799 by its driver causing death on the spot of the deceased. On behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P in part and awarded Rs.2,84,864/- towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,874/- per month as the earnings of the deceased which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and in the absence of any contra evidence produced by the respondents, it can be notionally taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and in my view the same would meet the ends of justice. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. Hence, after deducting one-fourth amount as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case loss of earnings would come to Rs.27,000/- per annum (Rs.3,000X12x3/4). The relevant multiplier for the age of 30 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is 18 and if the same is applied, loss of earnings comes to Rs.4,86,2000 (Rs.27000X18). A further sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which the appellants are entitled to comes to Rs.5,06,000/-, but since the appellants have claimed Rs.5,00,000/-, their claim is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,84,864/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2010 ks [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129