IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.40 of 2008 Between: Kotikalapudi Prameela Rani and another ..Appellant AND Dhulipudi Nageswaramma and another .. Respondents ORDER: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.244 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore, dated 22-12-2006. The factual background for the appeal is that Kotikalapudi Prabhakar Rao, working as cleaner of lorry AP-37-U-2426 was on duty on the lorry proceeding towards Hyderabad from Vijayawada with paddy load on 03-02-2005 at about 6.30A.M. Near culvert No.118/1 of Inupamula village, Kethepally Mandal, the lorry driven rashly and negligently in high speed dashed an opposite coming car and then dashed an opposite coming lorry resulting in the death of Kotikalapudi Prabhakar Rao with grievous injuries on the spot. Kethepally police registered Crime No.12 of 2005 and Prabhakar Rao, aged about 48 years, was earning Rs.4,000/- per month on whom the claimants, who are wife and son were solely dependent for their livelihood. Hence, they sought for Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry claimed that the lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, which policy was in force and he put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations. The insurer also put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations, while formally denying the accident etc., and also the possession of a valid driving licence by the driver. The owners and insurers of the car and the other lorry were also stated to be necessary parties and hence, both the respondents desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the death of Prabhakar Rao in the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 were marked during the enquiry and the Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly relying on Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Inquest Panchanama, apart from other documents, not contradicted by any evidence for the respondents, to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver resulted in the accident. The Tribunal then took the age of the deceased as between 45 and 50 years by the time of his death considering the claims of the claimants in this regard and the ages of the claimants. The Tribunal also considered the deceased to be earning Rs.1500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive and arrived at the annual loss of dependency at Rs.12,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 13, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,56,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The compensation of Rs.1,65,500/- in total was directed to carry interest at 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave further directions about the disbursement of the compensation to the claimants. The claimants are before this Court with this appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed should have been awarded taking the monthly salary as Rs.3,000/- and also considering the minimum wages payable to a cleaner under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time. Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and none appeared for the 1st respondent, owner of the lorry, before this court. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the lorry due to his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the relevant time is concerned, none of the parties have challenged the same and the said conclusion has become final. The ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are also not in dispute and consequently, none of the parties raised any dispute about the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimants as found by the Tribunal. The only question that is left for consideration is, therefore, the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The fact that the wife and son were dependent on the deceased for their livelihood is not in dispute as well as their relationship with the deceased and the occupation of the deceased as a cleaner of the lorry is also not in dispute before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly calculated the probable age of the deceased as between 45 and 50 years, taking into account not only the statement made by the wife in the affidavit about her husband’s age being 48 years, but also considering the ages of the claimants themselves as probablising such age in the absence of any documentary evidence. However, when it came to calculating the probable income of the deceased, the Tribunal arbitrarily adopted a figure of Rs.1500/- per month, without stating the basis for adoption of such a figure. It neither accepted the income per month claimed by the claimants nor did it refer to the statutory minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time for assessing the loss of dependency of the claimants. Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice that the minimum wages payable under the statutory notification under the Minimum Wages Act in 2003 to a cleaner were Rs.2490/- per month and advantage of VDA by the time of the accident in 2005 would take such minimum wages to not less than Rs.2700/-. Therefore, adopting a figure of Rs.2600/- per month as the probable income of the deceased at the relevant time will not be in deviation from the statutory minimum wages and calculating the loss of dependency of the claimants on such estimated income of Rs.2600/- per month after deducting 1/3rd of such income towards personal expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,800/-. The appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 13 for the age of the deceased and then the total loss of dependency for both the claimants comes to Rs.2,70,700/-. The sums of Rs.2500/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- granted towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium have to be maintained and therefore, the total compensation to which the claimants are entitled would come to Rs.2,80,200/-. The interest granted at 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs can be maintained in respect of enhanced portion of the compensation also and the impugned award has to be modified accordingly so as to grant just and adequate compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the award dated 22-12-2006 in O.P.No.244 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by granting a total compensation of Rs.2,80,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs to be shared equally between the petitioners and the appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. No further directions need be given regarding disbursement of compensation at this distance of time. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-09-2010 Ksn