THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.355 OF 2010 DATED: 20-08-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31-08-2009, in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 5 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,22,088/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-A.Ramesh, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31-01-2006. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents; 3rd claimant is the sister and the claimants 4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP36V 1387 and that a lorry bearing No.AP36W 2589, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the auto resulting in head injury to the deceased to which he succumbed in M.G.M. hospital, Warangal. A case in Cr.No.16 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the lorry by the police, Matwada police station. It is further pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged 19 years and was earning Rs.4500/- per month by working in ‘Neethika Bakery’, Kazipet. 6th respondent, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. Appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant, but Ex.B1- copy of the insurance policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and further held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,22,088/-. Accordingly, award was passed by the Tribunal for the said amount with interest @ 6% p.a. Aggrieved thereby, appellant-insurer preferred the present appeal. 6. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/5th from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses instead of 50%. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the deceased has left behind large number of dependants and the deduction of 1/5th of the income towards personal expenses and taking contribution of the deceased to the family as 4/5th of the income is just and reasonable. 8. It is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and was aged 19 years by the date of the accident. It is also not disputed that he was working as a baker in ‘Neethika Bakery’, Kazipet. As no evidence was adduced in support of the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2827/- which is the minimum wage payable to a baker as per G.O.Ms.No.75, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II), dated 29-07-2000. As the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother of the deceased is to be taken into consideration. The 2nd claimant-mother of the deceased is aged 40 years and as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the suitable multiplier would be ‘15’. As per the same decision, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses in case of bachelors. The decision, however, states that where the family of the bachelor is depending on the income of the deceased as in a case where he has a widow mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers his personal expenses may be restricted upto 1/3rd and contribution to the family would be taken as 2/3rd. 9. In the present case, the deceased has left behind not only his parents, but also the elder sister, who is unmarried and aged 21 years and two younger brothers, aged 17 and 15 years, who are students. In view of the fact that the deceased has left behind a sister and two younger brothers, who are all non-earning members of the family, it is considered that a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased would be just and reasonable. Notwithstanding the fact that the father of the deceased is alive and is earning, the contribution of the deceased to the family is therefore taken as 2/3r d and when calculated accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2827/- X 1/3 =Rs.1884.67/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.3,39,240.67/-. Claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation payable, therefore, works out to Rs.3,43,740.67/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.3,44,000/-. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th August, 2020 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298