IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.138 of 2009 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by Divisional Manager, Secunderabad … Appellant And: K. Vijay Prakash Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.138 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2008 in OP No.728 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum 15th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their daughter, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.06.1999. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was travelling in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 10 J 4149 and on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, the vehicle dashed against RTC bus which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Police registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 1999 against the driver of the Tata sumo. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 20 years and was earning Rs.4000/- per month as Tutor. 4. The 3rd respondent herein-owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, the claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer, but Ex.B.1 copy of the 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 Tata Sumo by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month without any basis or any evidence in support thereof and also failed to make any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus awarded higher compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 20 years and was earning Rs.4000/- per month by giving tuitions. The claimants however did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the said plea. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning any income at all. The Tribunal ought to have taken in to consideration the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.10,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried by the date of the accident. The age of the mother of the deceased has therefore to be taken into consideration. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent herein- mother of the deceased was aged 42 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the suitable multiplier for a person aged 42 years is ‘14’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 14) The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as per the II Schedule. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,44,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.06.2011 bss