Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1393 of 2004 · High Court · 2010

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded O.P.No.1145 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated

29.12.2003, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one Kiran Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2000 at about

17.30 hours when the claimant along with others was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-28/R-5379 from Thiruchandur to Rameshwaram side, at Eppodevendram, Moodu Kallapalem (bridge) side, one LPG Tanker lorry bearing No.KA-21/A-277 came from opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sumo, due to which the deceased and other inmates sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, the deceased succumbed the injuries. Hence, the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Standing Counsel insurer-second respondent. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased on mere surmises and conjectures and thereby, awarded a meager compensation, which has to be enhanced by this Court. The method and manner in which the accident occurred and the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry in causing the accident, etc., are not in dispute and hence, the same are not dealt with in this appeal.

The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. The evidence of P.W-1-the father of the deceased goes to show that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing import and export business. But, in support of the same, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants before the Tribunal. In such an event, I am of the view that taking a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the deceased would be proper. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of it has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, after which, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,500/- per month, which works out to Rs.18,000/- per annum. As the deceased was an unmarried person, the age of his mother has to be taken into account for the purpose of application of multiplier. The mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of death of the deceased, for which the corresponding multiplier is ‘14’. By applying the said multiplier, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,52,000/-. In addition to the said sum, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.