IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A No.3570 OF 2005 Between:- K.Krishna Reddy and another …Appellant A n d L.Lakshminarayana and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3570 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-04-2005 in O.P.No.3056 of 2003, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellants herein was allowed-in- part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,94,136/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking total compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of the death of their son Ravi Prakash Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 14/15-10-2003. According to the claimants, on that night the deceased was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 27 1373 as a pillion rider from his factory towards Shadnagar and near Maharaja Dhaba, when the rider of the scooter stopped by the side of the road and went for toilet, the deceased was standing on the left side of the scooter. At that time, one Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP 25U 1615 came from Shadnagar side, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injury on the head and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar and when he was being shifted to Osmania Government Hospital, Hyderabad, he died on the way. A case in Cr.No.319 of 2003 was registered by Shadnagar Police. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Stores Assistant in M/s Anu’s Laboratories, Chilkalmarri Village of Mahabubnagar District and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. The deceased, aged 25 years, was unmarried and his parents were entirely dependant on him, he being their only son. 4. The respondents filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents, but Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on their side. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP 25 U 1615 by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,94,136/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the award, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the amounts of Rs.858/- drawn by the deceased towards conveyance allowance and Rs.858/- drawn towards special allowance by estimating the loss of dependency. 8. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Mahindra Jeep by its driver and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, has become final, as the same is not challenged. 9. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, to what extent? 10. As borne out by the evidence on record, the deceased was working as Stores Assistant in M/s Anu’s Laboratories, Chilkalmarri Village and was unmarried. The claimants produced salary certificate-Ex.A-6 which showed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month, which comprised basic pay of Rs.1,740/-, HRA of Rs.1044/-, conveyance allowance of Rs.858/- and special allowance of Rs.858/-. P.W.2, who was a co-employee of the deceased, also gave evidence to the effect that Ex.A-6 was signed by authorized signatory i.e., the Managing Director. The respondents produced Ex.B-1 salary certificate which showed a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,900/- without disclosing the details of the various components of salary and it was not shown to have been issued by the authorized signatory. On due appreciation of the evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly eschewed Ex.B-1 from consideration and taken Ex.A-6 into account, as the same was signed by the Managing Director, the authorized signatory. As seen from Ex.A-6, the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.858/- per month towards conveyance allowance and Rs.858/- per month towards special allowance. The tribunal, however, excluded the said amount of Rs.1716/- and taken into consideration only a sum of Rs.2,784/-, as salary of the deceased for estimating the loss of dependency. It is to be noted that what has to be taken into consideration is the loss of income that was sustained on account of death of the deceased and based on such loss of income, the loss of dependency has to be arrived at. Insofar as conveyance allowance is concerned, the same was granted to the deceased for the purpose of meeting his expenditure for his personal transport in connection with his official duties and the same cannot, therefore, be considered as contribution that can be made by the deceased to the family, as the said amount is in the nature of expenditure towards transport. However, the other amount of Rs.858/- is special allowance, which is one of the components of the income of the deceased. The said amount of Rs.858/- per month drawn by the deceased as special allowance also partakes the character of income on par with other components of the total salary. The tribunal has erred in excluding the said amount of special allowance of Rs.858/- from consideration. It is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and the age of the mother of the deceased, the second respondent, is to be taken into consideration. The second respondent was aged 45 years and the appropriate multiplier as per Second Schedule would be ‘13’ for a person aged above 45 years, which was applied by the tribunal. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,642/- (Rs.2,784/- + Rs.858/-) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family works out to Rs.2,428/-. Applying the said multiplier ‘13’ to the income of Rs.29,136/- per annum (i.e., Rs.2,428 X 12), the loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,78,768/- (Rs.29,136 X 13). The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as per Second Schedule. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,83,268/-. The claimants are held entitled for interest at 9% per annum over the enhanced amount from today. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 11. 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 27th October, 2009 Lrkm.