THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.956 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 21.11.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.1391 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the appellants herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,86,000/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in an accident that occurred on 13.11.2006. 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day the deceased was going along the left side of Gajulalanka to Krishna river road and at that time a lorry bearing No.AP 26T 364, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.116 of 2006 was registered by the police, Kolluru police station against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was a labourer, engaged in loading and unloading sand on a daily wage of Rs.120/-. 4. 1st respondent-owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. 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 the said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,86,000/- towards compensation. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 7. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 40 years and the evidence on record also shows that the deceased was aged 40 years and working as a coolie, engaged in loading and unloading of sand. However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, treating the deceased as a non-earning member. When the material on record shows that the deceased was in fact an earning member, engaged in the loading and unloading work as a coolie, treating him as a non- earning member and taking the notional income into consideration, is erroneous. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to show that the deceased was earning Rs.120/-per day. In the absence of such evidence to the effect that the deceased was a daily wager, engaged in loading and unloading of sand, his income can be reasonably estimated at Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be estimated at Rs.2000/- per month which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier ‘15’, which is suitable to the age of the deceased, who is aged 40 years, the loss of dependency would be much more than what has been claimed by the appellants. 9. In the circumstances, it is held that the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,20,000/- claimed by them towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th August, 2011 Tsy