JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 14.03.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.515 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge–cum–Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahabubnagar (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,51,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on account of the death of Mohd. Rizwan Majid (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2015 at about 10:30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle, a TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-0653, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, resulting in grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. The appellants/claimants, being the father and sisters of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and awarded compensation of Rs.6,51,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/- per month by ignoring Ex.A8 salary certificate and the evidence on record, and thereby awarded inadequate compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to apply settled principles relating to assessment of income and grant of just compensation, and also awarded insufficient amounts under conventional heads, and hence the appellants/claimants seek enhancement of compensation by re-determining the income and awarding reasonable amounts under all heads.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation contended that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and that no interference is warranted; however, it is specifically urged that the rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum is on the higher side and contrary to the prevailing principles, and therefore the same is liable to be reduced suitably.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal discarded the salary certificate (Ex.A8) on the ground that no supporting documents were filed. However, having regard to the avocation of the deceased and the year of accident i.e., 2015, this Court is of the considered view that fixation of income at Rs.4,500/- per month is on the lower side. In the absence of strict proof, the notional income can reasonably be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,000/- and the annual contribution would be Rs.48,000/-. Applying the multiplier ‘16’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,68,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 16). Insofar as conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.75,000/- in total, which is inadequate. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi¹(2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.91,000/- under conventional heads. Accordingly, the total compensation is recalculated at Rs.8,59,000/- (Rs.7,68,000/- + Rs.91,000/-).

6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,51,000/- to Rs.8,59,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the Tribunal shall stand un