IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.730 OF 2008 Between: Mane Varalaxmi and two others … Appellants And: M.Pratap and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.730 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 04.10.2007 O.P.No.185 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV-Additional District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Nizamabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.84,716/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of death of the deceased M.Sudheer Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.08.2003. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was driving tractor bearing No.AP 25 H 9132 in the fields of Jannepally village shivar and as he could not control the vehicle, it overturned, resulting in the death of the deceased. 4. The 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle filed a counter admitting that the deceased was working as a driver on a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed a separate counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent herein, the insurer, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked.. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.84,716/- and also found that the risk of the deceased is covered by policy Ex.B-1. Admittedly, no appeal is filed by the respondent and, therefore, the said findings have become final. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at a low figure of Rs.800/- per month. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed as a driver on the tractor by the 1st respondent-owner and in respect thereof, they filed Ex.A-2 salary certificate showing that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. 8. It is not disputed that the 1st respondent-owner is non else than the father of the deceased. The 1st respondent is not examined to prove the contents of Ex.A- 2. In the absence of the evidence of the 1st respondent, the plea of the claimants that the deceased was employed as a driver by the 1st respondent on a salary of Rs.8,000/-, cannot be accepted, as the contents of Ex.A-2 are not proved. There is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased was engaged in any other occupation or earning any income. Treating the deceased as non-earning member, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family can be estimated at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 28 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased would be ‘17’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,70,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, as per the above decision in Sarla Verma’s case. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd September 2011 Lrkm [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121