AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Eswaraiah, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.07.2000 passed in O.P. No. 298 of 1994 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Mahbubnagar.
The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent - APSRTC is the respondent in O.P. No. 298 of 1994. In spite of service of notice on the APSRTC as long back as on 20.10.2000 none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.
It is the case of the claimants that the first claimant is the father and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased - Ashfaq Hussain and that the deceased while traveling in APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 3434 from Hyderabad to Kurnool for his cloth business, a lorry bearing No. ADT 2829 was halted near 194/1 R.D.S. Canal of National Highway No. 7 due to tyre puncture at its correct side, than the bus hit the said lorry at about 2.30 AM, due to which the deceased died on the spot and two others sustained injuries. It is stated that Ashfaq was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month in his cloth business and thus they have claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. As against the said claim the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 77,400/-. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation the claimants filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driver of the bus is concerned no appeal has been filed and the said finding has become final. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the claimants are entitled for the enhancement of compensation.
As per the claim petition it was stated that the deceased was aged about 20 years but Ex.A4 - Post Mortem Report goes to show that the apparent age of the deceased was 23 years. The mother of the deceased, examined as P.W.1, stated that the deceased was aged about 20 years and he died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which hit a halted lorry on National Highway No. 7. It is also stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month but no corroborative evidence has been adduced to prove that the deceased was doing cloth business and that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 600/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, his contribution towards family was taken at Rs. 400/- and taking the age of the parents, the multiplier 13 was adopted thereby arriving at the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs. 77,400/-.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners/claimants submits that in the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 the Supreme Court in the case of a 13 year old boy who died in an accident on 02.07.1998, applied the multiplier of 15 as set out in the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the Second Schedule of the Act the boy being a non-earning person a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was taken as his income and the compensation was determined.
In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that even in the absence of any proof of earning as per note 6 of Second Schedule of the Act, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and according to the claimants the age of the deceased was 20 years and if that be so, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 16. Thus, after deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses; the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs. 10,000/- per annum and applying multiplier 16, the contribution to the family comes to Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, as the claimants restricted their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/-, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- only.
Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from the Rs. 77,400/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the enhanced amount shall bear interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.