HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.4310 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal, dated 08.04.2003. Sri M.A.Nabi Majid, his wife-Parveen Ameer and their daughter-Romana Afreen and the claimants in the connected claim petitions before the Tribunal were travelling in the Mini Auto Taxi No.AP20 U 2592 to Yellandu on 10.11.1999. The A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No.AP9Z 9253 dashed against the auto near Aneshettypally resulting in the death of Sri M.A.Nabi Majid and his wife and injuries to others. The four minor children of Parveen Ameer filed M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2000 against the driver of the bus and the Corporation for a compensation of Rs.4,64,000/-. The guardian of the minor claimants stated that the deceased mother was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- p.m. from their hotel at Kothagudem. While the driver of the bus remained ex parte, the Corporation denied any rash and negligent driving by the bus driver and explained the manner of the accident as due to the auto driver suddenly overtaking a tractor rashly and negligently and dashing against the bus. The other allegations of the claimants are also denied. All the claims arising out of the same accident were considered together by the Tribunal which framed common issues about rashness and negligence in driving the bus, the dependency of the claimants on the deceased and their entitlement to compensation. The claims were tried together and during the course of the enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common order leading to the award under appeal firstly accepting the claim of PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1, first information report, and Ex.A.2, charge sheet. The Tribunal concluded in the absence of any contrary evidence that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the deceased Parveen Ameer was running a hotel and earning Rs.2,000/- p.m. The Tribunal, therefore, considered her as a labourer earning only Rs.1,000/- p.m. and on the assessed contribution of Rs.700/- p.m. to the family and applying 13.5 as the relevant multiplier, the Tribunal assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs.1,13,400/-. The Tribunal added non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/- and medical expenses of Rs.12,000/- as proved by Ex.A.14 and granted a total compensation of Rs.1,40,400/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The claimants preferred the present appeal challenging non- grant of compensation as claimed contending that the appropriate multiplier was not applied and the monthly income of the deceased was not properly assessed. Heard Sri M.T.Ghori, learned Counsel for the claimants- appellants, and Smt G.Niveditha, learned Counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent remained un-represented before this Court also. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the fault of the bus driver caused the accident remained unchallenged and had become final. The tortious liability of the first respondent-driver and the vicarious liability of the second respondent-Corporation to justly and adequately compensate the dependants of the deceased Parveen Ameer is and cannot be in dispute. The only question for consideration in the present appeal is the quantum of compensation and notwithstanding the positive evidence of PW.1 about Parveen Ameer earning Rs.2,000/- p.m. from a hotel run by her, the Tribunal placed no reliance on such claim due to absence of any documentary evidence. However, it could not have presumed the deceased to be non-earning and having no occupation in the light of the statements of PW.1 on oath and even in the absence of any document, when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) itself presumes even non- earning persons earning Rs.15,000/- p.a. as per second schedule, the Tribunal could not have assessed the income of the deceased as a labourer at a lesser rate. The minimum wages payable even to a labourer at that relevant time would not have been so meagre and in the absence of any material to arrive at the actual income which the deceased was earning, guidance is taken from the second schedule to the Act to assess the income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. The deceased was assessed to be aged about 37 years as per the post-mortem certificate and the dependants are four in number. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th and the appropriate multiplier applicable should be ‘15’. If so, on an assessed contribution of Rs.11,250/- p.a., the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,68,750/-. As per Sarla Verma (1 supra), the dependents were also entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and the four children have also to be awarded appropriate compensation for the loss of love and affection of the mother which can be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per child or Rs.20,000/- in total. The actual medical expenses proved by Ex.A.14 at Rs.12,000/- have also to be reimbursed and, if so, the total compensation payable comes to about Rs.2,10,750/-. As a compensation of Rs.1,40,400/- was already awarded, an enhancement of Rs.70,350/- has to be granted which can be rounded off to Rs.70,500/-. The enhanced compensation also has to be equally apportioned between the four claimants like the original compensation. In view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid, the same can be restricted to 6% while proportionate costs would have to naturally follow such enhanced compensation. In the result, the award dated 08.04.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.167 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.70,500/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Five Hundred Only) with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs to be equally apportioned between all the claimants in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:16.03.2011 usd [1] 2009 ACJ 1298