JUDGMENT :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This MACMA is arising out of OP No. 453 of 2002, which was partly allowed by way of Common Order dated 17.2.2007 in OP Nos. 501, 316, 318, 453 and 475 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

2. OP No. 453 of 2002 has been filed by the wife and children of the deceased-Janti Krishna Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5.6.1999, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their Counter before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record i.e., PWs. 1 to 3 and RWs. 1 to 3 and Exs. A1 to A11 and Ex. B1-Policy, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to the petitioners alongwith costs and interest at 7.5% per annum under different heads as follows:

5. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month, whereas, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing cashew nut business.

8. In this regard, PW 3, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband was doing cashew nut business and thereby earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of PW 3 and fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500/- per month. However, the basis on which the Tribunal arrived at the notional income of Rs. 1,500/-, is not stated in the order.

9. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that notional income can be taken into consideration when there is no proof of income. The Apex Court, in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has taken the notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month for a person in any unorganized sector.

10. In Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2014 (2) ALD 133 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 735, notional income was taken at Rs. 6,500/- per month for a vegetable vendor on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in the instant case, considering the evidence of PW 3-wife of the deceased, that the deceased was doing cashew nut business, his notional income can be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month for calculating the compensation. His annual income would come to Rs. 36,000/-.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged about 50 years as per the Post-Mortem Certificate. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), is "13". As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (6) ALD 170 (SC) : 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), as held in Para No. 42 of the Judgment, the Multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "M13". The Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as "11" to the age of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier applicable in this case is "M13". After deducting. 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs. 24,000/- and after multiplication with the multiplier "M13", the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,12,000/-.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consort