THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1335 of 2002. JUDGEMENT This appeal is filed against the Award dt. 7.12.2001 passed in O.P.No. 733 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Mahanandi Reddy filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of his death in a motor accident that occurred on 19.5.2000. The Tribunal below held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question and that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants and the said findings attained finality since no appeal is filed against the said findings. The deceased Mahanandi Reddy was said to be an agriculturist and was doing milk business. The learned Tribunal below rightly concluded that the deceased was having land of an extent of Ac. 7.50 cents basing on Ex: A.7 and he was doing agriculture. The learned Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the contention of the appellants that the deceased was also doing milk business. Except oral testimony of Pw.1, absolutely there is no other material on record to substantiate the said contention. Therefore the Tribunal below proceeded on the premise that the deceased was an agriculturist. As per Ex:A.1, the FIR, Ex:A.2, the inquest report and Ex:A.3 the post mortem report, the deceased was aged 50 years on the date of accident and the Tribunal has rightly considered his age as such for the purpose of computing compensation. However, the Tribunal below committed an error in considering the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 27,539/-, which was the value of the tobacco, which the deceased was transporting on the date of accident. There is no basis for the view taken by the Tribunal that the income of the deceased per annum is only Rs. 27,539/-, basing on leaf purchase vouchers (Ex:A.6). The evidence of Pw.1 indicates that the annual income of the deceased from agriculture is Rs. 60,000/-. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was raising commercial crops. Since the land remains with the appellant and the loss is only supervisory loss, the income of the deceased can be estimated at Rs. 3,000/-p.m., which comes to Rs. 36,000/- p.a. and out of this amount 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 13. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the annual income of the deceased has to be capitalized with multiplier, which comes to Rs. 3,12,000/- (24,000 x 13). This apart, the 1st appellant who is the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium, the appellants are entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and they are also entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the appellants are entitled for Rs. 3,32,000/-, as compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to grant compensation over and above the compensation claimed by the appellants, the compensation now awarded need not be restricted to the actual claim. The enhanced compensation shall carry the interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 23.04.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1335 of 2002. DT. 23.04.2010.