HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.666 OF 2000 Dated: 04.06.2010 BETWEEN: B.Mustafa and others .. Appellants And N.Pulla Reddy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.666 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.04.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 1996. 2. The claimants are the appellants. They challenge quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that it is grossly in adequate and not properly computed by the tribunal below. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 4. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioners 3 to 6 are not dependants on the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation. Thus, according to the tribunal, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased are only entitled for compensation. In this appeal, the said finding has not been challenged. Therefore, it is to be held that the appellants 1 and 2 are only entitled for compensation on account of the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 09.02.1996. Since the finding as to the liability of the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation jointly and severally has became final, it needs no further consideration in the present appeal. 5. The only question to be addressed is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is in accordance with law, just and reasonable. 6. The deceased, Abdul Saleem was aged 20 years on the date of his death and he studied 10th class and he was doing agriculture and was earning Rs.15,000/- per annum. This is the version of the claimants in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal also arrived at the opinion that the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, the learned Tribunal granted only Rs.50,000/- on the ground that the petitioners did not adduce any evidence regarding the earnings of the deceased. This apart, some other conventional amounts were awarded by the Tribunal and a total compensation of Rs.82,000/- was awarded. 7. The claimants themselves stated in their claim petition that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per annum. This being the income of a non-earning person, mentioned in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same for the purpose of computing the compensation and it should have calculated the compensation basing on multiplier method. The approach adopted by the learned Tribunal is wholly erroneous and the award passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as it relates to quantum of compensation requires modification in this appeal. 8. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.15,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, half of the income shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenditure, and his contribution to the appellants 1 and 2 comes to Rs.7,500/-. The relevant multiplier to the age of the mother is 14. To arrive at the loss of earnings, the above amount has to be capitalized with 14, which comes to Rs.7,500/- x 14 = Rs.1,05,000/-. This apart, the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.1,05,000/- +Rs.5,000/- +Rs.5,000/- = Rs.1,15,000/-. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.33,000/- (Rs.1,15,000/- minus Rs.82,000/- ). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 9. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 04.06.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.666 OF 2000 Dated: 04.06.2010