THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.76 OF 2009 DATED:29-04-2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 21-11-2008, in M.V.O.P.No.419 of 2005 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, wherein the said claim petition filed by the appellant herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased daughter, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.08.2000. According to the claimant, on that day at about 6.00 p.m. while her daughter-Sangeetha-deceased was returning home from the agricultural fields along with the other coolies, a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP.1C-3427, belonging to the 1st respondent, driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and subsequently died while undergoing treatment in Government hospital, Mudhole. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged 16 years and was earning Rs.2000/- per month as an agricultural coolie. 4. The owner of the vehicle-1st respondent remained ex parte. 2nd respondent filed a counter denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent-insurer. Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.75,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant-petitioner filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at a meager amount of Rs.500/- per month and the driver ought to have taken note of the fact that an agricultural coolie in the rural area is paid not less than Rs.100/- per day. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer would on the other hand contend that the deceased was young girl aged 12 years and was not capable of earning any income. 9. Though it is claimed that the deceased was aged 16 years, the postmortem certificate-Ex.A2 disclosed the age of the deceased as 12 years. The claimant has not adduced any other evidence to show that the girl was aged 16 years as claimed. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 would disclose that the deceased was doing agricultural coolie work. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is not uncommon for children of that age to go for coolie work in the villages and earn something to support the family. It is in the evidence that the husband of the claimant deserted her and the deceased and the claimant were eking out their livelihood by going for coolie work. However, the income taken into consideration by the Tribunal at only Rs.500/- appears to be rather low. It can be reasonably expected that though the deceased was aged only 12 years she would be earning not less than Rs.30/- per day, which comes to Rs.750/- per month for 25 working days and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the contribution to the family can be reasonably expected at Rs.500/- per month which comes to Rs.6000/- per annum. As the deceased died unmarried, the age of the mother- claimant has to be taken into consideration. It is not disputed that the claimant was aged 35 years and the appropriate multiplier for 35 years is ‘16’ as per the decision of the apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. Applying the same to the income of Rs.6000/- per annum, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.6000/- X 16). The claimant is also entitled for Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards transportation charges. Appellant is totally entitled to Rs.1,02,500/-(Rs.96,000/- + Rs.2000/- + Rs.2500/- + Rs.2000/-) with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned order is accordingly modified. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th April, 2011 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298