HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.No.3086 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2001 in O.P.No.971 of 1998 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, awarding a compensation of Rs.92,088/- out of the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, claimants filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 17.05.1998 Ramavath Mangya (hereinafter referred as deceased) and another were bringing tent house articles to Kondamallepally village on a tractor-trailer and they stopped the tractor along the left side of the road for the purpose of getting diesel. However, while the deceased and another injured were sitting in the trolley of tractor- trailer and they were taking diesel into the diesel tanks at about 10.00 PM a lorry bearing No.AP-7-T-4224 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against the trailer and consequently the trailer turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot and others sustained injuries. The police registered a case in Crime No.54 of 1998 against the driver of the lorry. The first claimant is father of the deceased, second claimant is mother of the deceased and claimants 3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that the first respondent is the owner of the lorry and that the second respondent being the insurance company with which the tractor was insured are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally, the claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents. The first respondent remained ex parte. The insurance company alone contested the matter. The insurance company denied all the material averments made by the claimants and also contended that it is for the claimants to prove their contentions. The Tribunal formulated the points for consideration as follows: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-7-T- 4224? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? Other claim petitions in O.P.No.834 of 1998 wherein the injured claimed compensation and O.P.No.984 of 1998 wherein the claimants claimed the compensation for the death of another person and the claim petition out of which this appeal arose were clubbed together and common award was passed by the Tribunal. The first claimant in this claim was examined as PW.2. The claimant in O.P.No.834 of 1998 was examined as PW.1 and the first claimant in O.P.No.984 of 1998 was examined as PW.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. The claimants contended that the deceased was a labourer aged about 20 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.600/- per month and by applying multiplier ’12.79’ awarded a compensation of Rs.92,088/-. Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the labourers will get more than Rs.100/- per day and that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.600/-. The learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the award. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is just and reasonable? Admittedly the deceased was aged about 20 years. The deceased was the only son to the claimants 1 and 2. In the circumstances, as the deceased was unmarried, the age of his mother is the criteria for taking the multiplier and as the mother of the deceased is aged about 40 years the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. Though the labourers in cities and urban areas may be getting wages arranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- but in rural areas, the labourers may be getting wages from Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day in 1998. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month. Since the deceased was unmarried 50% of his income should be deducted towards personal expenses. If 1/2 is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.1,200/- X 12 = Rs.14,400/- per annum. By applying ‘15’ multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,400/- X 15 = Rs.2,16,000/-. Apart from loss of dependency the claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection. Thus, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.2,41,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry 6% interest per annum. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 28th March, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ 1298