IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.277 of 2002 Between: Smt A.Punyavathi ..... Appellant/claimant AND Shaik Mahboob and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P.No.147 of 1998 dated 01.10.2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Medak at Sangareddy. 2. The appellant filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, consequent to the death of her husband Venkataiah. 3. On 02.12.1997, the deceased Venkataiah was traveling in a car bearing Registration No.MMJ 1188. When the car was stopped at the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sadasivpet, the lorry bearing Registration No. KA 39 2801 belonging to the 1st respondent herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car. The deceased received multiple injuries and died. Hence, the appellant claimed compensation as mentioned above. 4. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company disputed the claim on the ground that the car was stopped on the middle of the road and the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself. The 2nd respondent- Insurance Company also disputed the earning capacity of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal framed the issues as to whether the accident occurred on 02.12.1997 was caused by the driver and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation? 6. The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and got examined, K.Nagesh as PW.2 and filed documents Exs.A-1 to A-10. None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no documents were adduced on their behalf. 7. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the 1st respondent herein. The issue relating to the rash and negligent driving need not be gone into in this appeal and the appeal concerned only with the enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed that the deceased was working as Village Servant at Serilingampally, earning salary of Rs.2,000/- per month and that he used to earn Rs.4,000/- by cultivation. The appellant also contended that the deceased was aged 30 or 32 years on the date of accident and that he was in hospital for 28 days and she has spent Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate, Ex.A-7- original driving licence, Ex.A-8-pass book and Ex.A-10-letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer were filed to support the claim. But, from the said documents, it cannot be said that the deceased was appointed as driver and as rightly held by the Tribunal, merely because the deceased was having driving licence and that he was working as driver does not mean that he was employed as driver in the department. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was earning Rs.700/- per month and D.A. of Rs.5/- and on that basis the Tribunal fixed the annual contribution at Rs.6,000/- and applied ‘12’ multiplier. The Tribunal awarded Rs.72,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- towards non pecuniary damages and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. 10. I am unable to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning a meager amount of Rs.700/- per month as recorded by the Tribunal. Even if, the deceased was not working as driver, it is reasonable to presume that he was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. Since the deceased left behind him the appellant, who is his wife and respondent No.3 mother, it is reasonable to deduct Rs.300/- out of Rs.1000/- and hence, the loss of dependency can be fixed at Rs.700/- per month. Taking the same into consideration, the annual contribution can arrived at Rs.8,400/-. As per Ex.A-7 driving licence, the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. Following the principle in SARLAVARMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] ‘14’ multiplier is to be applied. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.1,17,600/-. The Tribunal has already awarded amounts towards non pecuniary damages, loss of consortium and medical expenses, which do not warrant any interference. Thus, I am of the opinion that the ‘just’ compensation would be Rs.1,62,600/- out of which, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,17,000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled for Rs.45,600/- as enhancement of compensation in the present appeal. 10. Accordingly, I hold that the enhancement of Rs.45,600/- is payable along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The award passed in O.P.No.147 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Medak at Sangareddy is modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 5th February 2010 Ivd [1] 2009(6) SCC 129