THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.558 of 2004 Dated: 16-12-2010 Between: K.Anjamma and others. ………..Appellant and N.Kishan and another. …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.558 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is directed against the award dated 06-11-2003, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabd, in O.P.No.2380 of 2001, filed by the appellants-claimants claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Jamaiah (herein after referred to as the ‘deceased’), who is the husband of the 1st appellant, father of the appellants 2 to 5 and son of the 6th appellant, in a motor accident when the deceased along with his wife, 1st appellant, was proceeding on their scooter bearing Regn. No.ADX- 5476 from Katepalli village to Chinaramacharla village, Warangal, and when they reached Jammapuram bus stage, a lorry bearing Regn. No.AP- 28T-6700, came from their behind with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their scooter, due to which, the deceased was dragged into a distance, received serious and fatal injuries and died on the spot. The 1st appellant also received fractures and grievous injuries. 2. Before the Court below, 1st respondent-who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documents marked under Exs.A-6 to A-9, awarded Rs.2,40,000/- towards future loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of the body and funeral expenses, in all, the appellants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Court below, the claimants-appellants filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, especially with regard to the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Court below, contended that the Court below failed to assess the monthly income of the deceased and estimated only Rs.2,000/- per month. But at the time of accident, the deceased was a young-man, aged about 38 years only. Further, he is a barber and milk vendor by profession. Moreover, he was an Upa Sarpanch to the village. By all these, he is earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. In support of his contention, he relied upon Exs.A-6 to A-8, certificates showing the income of the deceased, issued by the Sarpanch, and Ex.A-9, professional business licence. Hence, for all these reasons, the compensation awarded by the Court below towards loss of dependency may be enhanced 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Court below has awarded compensation more than the appellants actually entitled, and therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to enhance the award granted by the Court below. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died. The Court below awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of the body and funeral expenses, which, in my considered view, may not be interfered with and the same are confirmed. 8. So far as granting of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of dependency is concerned, the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the income derived by the deceased from both his profession and business. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was a young-man, aged about 38 years, earning income from both the professions viz., milk vendor and barber. It is also not out of place to mention that he was an Upa-Sarpanch to the village. Considering all these aspects, his monthly income can be taken at least Rs.3,000/-. Then his annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. If 1/4th is deducted, it comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum. According to the age of the deceased, the Court below applied correct multiplier ‘15’. Then the total loss of dependency can be granted Rs.4,05,000/- (27000/- (x) 15). Therefore, the appellants- claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rs.4,05,000/-(+) Rs.15,000/-(+) Rs.25,000/- (+) Rs.5,000/-). However, since the appellants- claimants have restricted their claim to an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, they are granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards total compensation. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed holding that the appellants- claimants are entitled for Rs.1,15,000/- as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.2380 of 2001, dated 06-11-2003, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 16, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr