The compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of their husband and father should be based on the income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the multiplier of 17' should be applied as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Additionally, the claimants are entitled to compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.

JUDGMENT

V. Sujatha, J. - This Appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved with the award dated 25.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore in Original Petition No. 618 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

2. The claimants, who are wife, children and parents of one Tegacherla Venkataramaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), filed the above claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. On 09.01.2004, the deceased and other villagers boarded a tractor bearing No. A.P.26/U-194 to attend a meeting at Podalakur and after the meeting, while they were waiting at the gate, the driver of the tractor, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the compound wall of the gate, resulting which, the compound wall fell on the deceased and the deceased received injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 30 years and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as Maistry as on the date of accident. Hence the claim petition.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the contents of the petition and disputed the accident, earning capacity of deceased and dependency. Further contended that as the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The 2nd respondent also filed counter denying rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the tractor and disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the nature of the accident. Further contended that the claim of compensation is excessive and untenable, hence he is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. A.P.26/U-0194 of respondent No. 1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in, however Ex. B1 was marked.

7. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs. A1 and A2, came to the conclusion that the deceased received injuries and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month, as there was no proof about his earning capacity, and thereby fixed the contribution to the family at Rs. 9,600/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 16' as the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of accident and arrived at Rs. 1,53,600/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,83,600/-, which was rounded off to Rs. 1,85,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:

8. Heard Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the claimants and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and ought to have taken the income of deceased as Rs. 2,810/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16' instead of 17' as per th