THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3585 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.8/2000. The Petitioners – Claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Malla Reddy, filed this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- awarded by the court below for the death of the deceased in an accident. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows: On 16.04.1999 at about 4.45 p.m. when the deceased Malla Reddy was going by walk, at Narketpally, the RTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 4494 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, on account of that the deceased died. The deceased was aged 45 and was doing transport business and agriculture, on which he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. Respondent APSRTC filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z- 4494? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the trial judge taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, accepting his age as 45 years, applied multiplier ‘10’ and granted a compensation of Rs.2,65,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Now, the point for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is inadequate and whether the petitioners are entitled for higher compensation? 6. There is no dispute about the respondent being liable for the compensation. No appeal is filed against the impugned judgment by the respondent. The only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. When the age of the deceased is 45 years, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in "SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION"[1] multiplier ‘14’ can be taken instead of ‘10’ as taken by the court below. As per the claim of the petitioners, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and transport business. With regard to agriculture, no material is filed. But, with regard to his transport business, material is filed to show that he owned two lorries. The court below observed that no material is filed to show as to since how many days, the petitioner was getting income on lorries. However, in my opinion, putting the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- is grossly inadequate when he was owning two lorries. If it is not Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners, the deceased must have been be earning Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per month by the date of accident. In the circumstances, I am inclined to put the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. 7. With regard to the contribution also, as the dependants are 4, on the basis of the principle laid down in Sarla Varma’s case (stated 1 supra) only 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, from Rs.5,000/- if 1/4th is deducted, the contribution comes to Rs.3,750/- per month, annually it comes to Rs.45,000/-. If multiplier ‘14’ is applied, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of more than Rs.6.00 lakhs and the claim is only Rs.5.00 lakhs. As such, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation claimed. 8. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed. However, the petitioners shall be entitled for interest at 6% per annum only on the enhanced amount of compensation. The apportionment of the compensation shall be as follows: 9. The first petitioner is entitled to Rs.2.00 lakhs and petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall be entitled to Rs.1.00 lakh each. They shall be entitled for interest on their respective amounts. Out of the total compensation, the first petitioner can withdraw an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh as and when deposited including the amount already withdrawn by her. The remaining amount shall be withdrawn only after one year from today with accrued interest. The petitioners 2,3 and 4 shall be entitled to withdraw their respective shares of compensation with accrued interest as directed by the trial court, as the O.P. is of the year 2000. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 18th November 2010, Rns [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104