THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.1050 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Perugu Ramulamma, the mother of respondents 1 and 2 herein, boarded an auto-rickshaw, bearing No.AP 20 V 7526, owned by the 4th respondent, driven by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant, with a view to travel to Mahabubabad, on 02.05.2004 at 15.45 hours. When the auto reached Ramannapet Colony cross road, the driver is said to have lost control of the auto and it turned turtle. Ramulamma died, while undergoing treatment in the hospital on the same day. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.No.69 of 2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Warangal, claiming Rs.3,00,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged 50 years and that the death occurred, on account of the rashness on the part of the 3rd respondent. It was also stated that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.3,000/-, per month, to the family, in the form of her service. The O.P. was opposed by the appellants. Respondents 3 and 4 remained ex parte. Through order dated 25.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as prayed for. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. To prove their case, respondents 1 and 2 examined PWs.1 and 2 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the appellants, Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was filed. The occurrence of the accident was proved, in view of the documentary evidence comprised in Exs.A.1 to A.5 - the FIR, charge- sheet, post-mortem report, inquest report and MVI report. The appellants do not seriously challenge the said finding. The controversy is about the quantum of compensation. There was some uncertainty about the age of the deceased. While in the FIR and inquest report the age was mentioned as 60 years, in the post- mortem report, it was stated to be 50 years. It is only at the stage of post-mortem that a medical practitioner would be in a position to express his view. The information furnished either in FIR, or in inquest, is only on guess. The Tribunal took the age of the mother of respondents 1 and 2 as 60 years and applied multiplier ‘13’ and no interference is warranted. The deceased was not having any income of her own. Following the judgment of the supreme Court in Lath Wadhva v. State of Bihar[1], the Tribunal took the value of her services at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the evidence does not support the same. It is felt that the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,500/-, per month, and that would be at Rs.30,000/-, per year, and if one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.20,000/-, per year. The multiplier ‘13’ becomes relevant for the person of the age of 50 years. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,60,000/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, ‘transport charges’ etc. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, reducing the compensation to Rs.2,80,000/-. It is represented that the appellants have deposited the entire amount. They shall be entitled to withdraw the amount, which becomes excess on account of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.12.2011 GJ [1] AIR 2001 SC 3216