HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :1803 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimants challenging the order dated 10th February, 2004 in M.V.O.P. No.315 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy District. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.1998, the deceased Laxman while returning from Devulapally in an auto bearing No. AP 13 U 9036 and when it reached near I.T.I. in the sivar of Hathnoora, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to the jerks, the deceased who was sitting in the auto had fallen down and sustained head injury. Immediately, he was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment. Hence, the appellants, who are the wife, children, mother and father of the deceased filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- initially and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the order dated 14.2.2003 in I.A. No. 1920 of 2003. The 1st respondent-owner of the auto remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company has filed a counter affidavit stating that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto and it also disputed the death of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the driver of the auto was not having valid licence and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the death of the deceased Laxman is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto ? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as prayed for ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. However, a memo was filed by the insurance company about the existence of the Insurance policy. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto belonging to the 1st respondent. However, while taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.600/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, by applying the multiplier of 16.50, it determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 79,200/-. In addition to this, the appellants were also granted an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,09,200/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants contended that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. He further contended that since the deceased was working as a collie, he would have earned an amount of Rs.1500/- per month and the Tribunal erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 600/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal also did not apply proper multiplier while determining the compensation amount. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, supported the impugned Award and stated that the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1s t appellant, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1. She also examined P.W.3, who is an eye witness to the incident. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased died in a road accident that occurred on 21.3.1998. He further stated that on that day when himself and the deceased were coming in the auto from Devulapally and when they reached near Hathoor sivar, the driver of the auto drove the auto with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes, due to which, the deceased Lambadi Laxmaiah had fallen down from the auto and sustained head injury, which resulted in his death. The appellants also filed Exs. A1 to A5 to prove that the deceased died in the said accident. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents to disprove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.3 and Exs. A1 to A5, disbelieved the said plea and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto belonging to the 1st respondent alone. In so far as income of the deceased is concerned, according to the appellants-claimants, the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning about Rs.1,500/- per month Though there is no evidence to show the actual income of the deceased, but, I feel it appropriate to take the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month. However, after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal, expenses, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family is assessed at Rs. 12,000/- annually. In view of the fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of the incident, while following the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier that would be applicable to the age of the deceased would be 17 and by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.12000 x 17). However, the sums of Rs.15,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of estate are reduced to Rs.10,000/- each. In all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- instead of Rs. 1,09,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129