IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.NO.1651 of 2002 Date:27.10.2009. Between:- Kuruguntla Veeramma and others ..Appellants/Petitioners And R.Deen Dayal and another .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2002 in O.P.No.9 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of death of deceased- Kuruguntla Dharma Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.1999. Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, at about 4 a.m., near Shanthinagar locality of Kodad Town, when the deceased was going in his auto and crossed Bojjagudem Thanda, a lorry bearing No.AAH 3636 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed, dashed the auto resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased and he died on the spot. A case in Crime No.1 of 1999 was registered by Kodad Rural Police Station against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was stated to be owner and driver of the auto earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. The owner of the lorry-respondent No.1 remained exparte. 5. Respondent No.2-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 6. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 7. 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 bearing No.AAH 3636 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the above order, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. 8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation has become final, as no appeal is filed by them. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for any compensation and if so, to what extent? 9. According to the claimants, the deceased was owner- cum-driver of the auto, which he purchased by taking loan from the bank and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by plying the said auto. The Tribunal did not consider the said plea on the ground that no document was filed by the claimants to show that the deceased purchased the auto and was plying the same and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, took into consideration, an amount of Rs.900/- per month for estimating the loss of dependency. Ex.A-4-Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report would disclose that the deceased was driver. Even in the First Information Report and charge sheet, it is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was driving his own auto. Though the claimants have not filed any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by plying the auto, as claimed by them, the evidence on record, nevertheless, establishes that the deceased was owning the auto bearing No.AP-24-T-7721 and was plying the same. In view of the same, the income taken by the Tribunal into consideration at Rs.900/- per month, for estimating loss of dependency, is considered to be too low. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was owning the auto and plying the same for eking out his livelihood, it is considered just and proper to estimate the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd thereof, at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, which comes to personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution towards the family can be estimated at Rs.1,000/- per month which comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum. As seen from the Copy of the Post Mortem Report – Ex.A-3, the deceased was aged 30 years. As per the second schedule, the suitable multiplier for a person aged 30 years is “18”. The Tribunal, however, applied a lesser multiplier of “16.61” for no stated reason. Applying the multiplier of “18” to the income of Rs.12,000/- per annum, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,16,000/-. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Claimant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,45,500/- i.e., enhancement of Rs.49,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. on enhanced amount from the date of filing of the present appeal. The impugned order dated 13.03.2002 is modified to the extent stated above. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th October, 2009 AMD