THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.1354 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), is directed against the order dated 01.04.2005 in O.P No.80 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Mahabubnagar. The claimants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are the appellants, who being wives, children and parents of the deceased filed the O.P claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of K. Venkatramulu (for short ‘the deceased’) in an accident that occurred on 22.12.2000 at about 2.00 p.m. On that day, the deceased went to a kirana shop in the village on bicycle and when he was crossing the road of national high way No.7, a lorry bearing No.KA 01 5603 which was proceeding from Hyderabad to Kurnool, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the bicycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and tyres of the lorry ran over the body of the deceased, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. The deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing cloth business and running a petty kirana shop. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 – certified copies of F.I.R., post mortem report, M.V.I. report, charge sheet and photo copy of insurance policy. On behalf of the insurance company, no witness was examined, but marked Ex.B-1 - insurance policy. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. Since no evidence was adduced regarding the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per II Schedule of the Act. Since the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of the accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘15’. Accordingly, the Tribunal calculated the compensation at Rs.2,10,000/-, out of which, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at compensation to Rs.1,40,000/-. Apart from this amount, the Tribunal awarded further sums of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased only at Rs.15,000/- per annum though the deceased earning Rs.6,000/- per month i.e., Rs.5,000/- by doing cloth business and Rs.1,000/- by selling eggs and food products. The learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month i.e., Rs.5,000/- by doing cloth business and Rs.1,000/- by selling eggs and food products. In the absence of any contra evidence produced by the respondents, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month, which in my view would meet the ends of justice, and accordingly per annum it comes to Rs.24,000/-. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. Hence, after deducting one- fifth, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.19,200/-. The appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased i.e., 40 years, as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra), as rightly applied by the Tribunal, is ‘15’ and if the same is applied, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,88,000 (19200 X 15). Thus, the total amount of compensation to which the appellants are entitled to comes to Rs.2,88,000/-, but since the appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/- in their claim petition, their claim is restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,47,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, which shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129