THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3398 OF 2003 DATED: 15-03-2010 Between: Aitha Vasantha & 2 others. ..... APPELLANTS And M.Sambaiah & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 25-03-2003, in O.P.No.1239 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal. 2. It appears, the 1st appellant is the wife and appellants 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased- Rajamouli. On 19-06-2001, when the husband of the 1st appellant was coming in an auto bearing No.AP36U 3932, near Kantathmakur village, due to rash and negligent driving of the auto it turned turtle and the husband of the 1st appellant received injuries and died. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month as he was working in a rice mill at Parkal. He had also got Ac.2.00 of dry land. The appellants have lost their sole bread winning member of the family and therefore they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. 1st respondent, who is the owner of the auto remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed a counter putting the claimants to strict proof of the rashness attributed to the driver of the auto and its involvement in the accident. The age of the deceased, his income and dependency of the petitioners was disputed. Further, it was contended that the claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was excessive and exorbitant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as the legal heirs of the deceased, from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex.B1-policy was marked, but none was examined. 6. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and while considering the issue No.2 it has come to the conclusion that though there is Ex.A6- salary certificate showing that the deceased was earning about Rs.3000/- per month, since the person, who issued the said certificate was not examined, it was not taken into consideration and the monthly income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.1000/- per month only and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards his contribution to the family it was fixed at Rs.700/- and thus calculated the annual income at Rs.8400/- (Rs.700/- X 12). Since the deceased was aged 30 years, the multiplier ‘16’ was applied and thus an amount of Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.8400/- X 16) towards loss of dependency; Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, in all, Rs.1,64,400/- was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation contending that the monthly income of the deceased was fixed at a very lower rate and that in the circumstances the deceased could not have earned less than Rs.3000/-. This aspect was not properly considered by the trial Court. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and further stated that the deceased was only a labourer, working in the rice mill, and in the year, 2001 the monthly wages of a labourer in a rice mill was not more than Rs.1000/- and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1000/-, and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenditure, contribution to the family was fixed at Rs.700/-. The Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference by this Court. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the award passed by the Tribunal and other material made available on record. 8. The only aspect to be seen is whether the Tribunal was right in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1000/-, particularly in the face of Ex.A6-salary certificate showing that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. May be the person who issued the certificate was not examined, but that itself does not mean that the deceased was earning only Rs.1000/- per month. Even in the year 2001, the minimum wage of a coolie, fixed was not less than Rs.75/- per day. Therefore, Rs.75/- X 30 comes to Rs.2250/- and even if it is fixed at Rs.2000/- per month, it stands on a reasonable footing and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards expenditure to be met by the deceased, it would come to Rs.1400/-. I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, Rs.1400/- can be fixed as contribution of the deceased to the family. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.1400/- X 12). However, the multiplier applied seems to be reasonable and therefore by applying ‘16’ it comes to Rs.2,68,800/- (Rs.16,800/- X 16). 9. Apart from the above, the appellants are entitled for non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15000/- and the first appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,98,800/- (Rs.2,68,800/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-). 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,98,800/-. However, the apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal is kept intact. Claimants are entitled for 9% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the appeal till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 15th March, 2010 Tsy