THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009. C.M.A.No. 1874 of 2000 Between: 1.Smt.Pochamma and 4 others. …….Appellants. vs. 1.Mirza Dawood Baig and another. ……….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1874 of 2000 JUDGEMENT: This appeal is directed against the Award dt. 10.1.2000 in O.P.Nos. 287 and 289 of 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the District Judge, Medak. The claimants are the appellants herein. They filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. I have heard Sri.M.Raja Malla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri.T.Mahnder Rao, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad. The appellants/claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Mallareddypet Mallesham who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.10.1998 at Medak. Initially, in their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- and subsequently they filed a petition seeking permission to enhance the claim at Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was allowed by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below after conducting an enquiry awarded compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- under various heads and granted interest at 15% p.a. In the present appeal, the appellants seek to enhance the compensation. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to fix the compensation, which is just and reasonable. In its counter filed before the Tribunal below, the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd., denied all the averments without taking any specific pleas as to the age, avocation and income of the deceased. However, the burden is on the appellants to prove the age, avocation and the income of the deceased. To substantiate their claim, the appellants examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.7. Pw.1 is the wife of the deceased and Pw.2 is the Assistant Engineer in APSEB, Medak. The 2nd respondent did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on its behalf. The learned Tribunal below upon considering the entire material on record awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- to the appellants, which is sought to be enhanced, in the present appeal. Pw.1, the wife of the deceased stated in her deposition that her husband was working as a Lineman in APSEB and getting salary of more than Rs. 3000/- per month and his age was 31 years as on the date of his death. Ex:A.5 is the salary certificate filed by the appellants. Ex:A.5 shows that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,129/- per month and the deductions were Rs. 342.90 paisa and after deductions, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,786/- p.m. Pw.2 stated in his evidence that the deceased Mallesham was working as a Lineman under his control in APSEB, Medak. In the cross-examination of either Pw.1 or Pw.2, the 2nd respondent-insurance company did not dispute the fact that the deceased was working as a Lineman in APSEB, Medak. Ex:A.7 is the Memo dt. 6.10.1999 issued by the Divisional Engineer (Operation) APTRANSCO in response to the application filed by Pw.1 to furnish the date of birth of the deceased. In Ex:A.7, the issuing authority mentioned that the date of birth of the deceased Mallesham as 3.8.1964 as per the entries recorded in the Service Register. Even according to Ex:A.4, the certified copy of post-mortem report also, the deceased was aged about 31 years. Therefore the Tribunal below rightly considered the age of the deceased as 31 years, as on the date of his death. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, considering the future prospectus of the deceased, who died at the age of 31 years while he was working as Lineman in APSEB, cannot be less than 3000/- p.m., which was rightly taken by the learned Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/-. Out of this amount, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 12,000/-. If Rs. 12,000/- is deducted out of annual income of Rs. 36,000/-, it comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, as per II Schedule is 17 to arrive at the total loss of dependency. Thus the total loss of income comes to Rs. 4,08,000/- (24,000 X 17). In addition to the above amount, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) Law Summary 29 (S.C.)], Pw.1 (the wife of the deceased) is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and they also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation (4,08,00+10,000+5,000+5,000) comes to Rs. 4,28,000/- (Rs four lakhs twenty eight thousand only). The Tribunal below awarded interest at 15%, which is not in accordance with the Judgments of the Supreme Court. The interest is reduced to 7.5% p.a. which is payable on the total compensation from the date of petition till realisation. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation by Rs. 73,000/- ( 4,28,000-3,55,000) and reducing the interest from 15/% p.a., to 7.5 % p.m. on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 6.11.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1874 of 2000 Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009.