THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.823 of 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3907 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the second respondent-insurance company against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry, in O.P.No.151/2000, dated 23.10.2002. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 14.02.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. when the deceased (Bera Venkata Arun Kumar) was proceeding on his cycle towards Gokavaram Bus stand, at Mulagoyyi Centre, the driver of the bus had driven the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5688 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle, on account of that the deceased fell down and rear wheels of the bus ran over his head resulting his instantaneous death. According to the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, the deceased was aged about 24 years and working as teacher earning around Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. First respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter denying the petition averments. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether Bera Venkata Arun Kumar died in the road accident occurred on 14.02.2000 at 5.10 p.m. opposite to Pervathi Padmavathi Theatre, Mulagoyyi Centre, Rajahmundry due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5688 by the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.2,72,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the second respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. and aggrieved by the rejection of the remaining amount of compensation claimed, the claimants have preferred cross-objections. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? 7. The deceased was a post-graduate in commerce. He was said to be earning around Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. He was aged 24 years and he died in the year 2000. He had qualification in computers also. By passage of time, he would have definitely earned substantial amount, but as approximate income of the deceased has to be fixed, it can be at least taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. Out of that if 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] his contribution to the family can be taken at Rs.2,000/- and on the basis of the age of his mother, which is said to be around 45 years, however, as there is no authentic material, I am inclined to apply multiplier ‘13’ treating her age as around 46 years. In that event, the petitioners would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- towards loss of dependency and another Rs.13,000/- can be granted under other heads. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- can be awarded to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed and the cross- objections are partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,72,000/- to Rs.3,25,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th December 2010, Rns [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121