1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum–Additional District Judge, Hindupur, dated 13.03.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2011, assailing the quantum of compensation.

I. CONTENTIONS:-

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erroneously considered income of Rs.3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 50% though he is a bachelor, also applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘15’ for the age of 38 years of the mother and sought to modify the Award.

3. Thelearned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents fairly conceded that 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and the applicable multiplier is ‘15’. It is further submitted that though the Claimants did not file any appeal or cross objections challenging the quantum of compensation but as per Order XLI, Rule 33 of CPC, this Court may modify the Award enhancing to award just compensation. Also submits that the Tribunal took the daily wage at Rs.100/- despite evidence that the deceased was working as a Cleaner and earning Rs.300/- per day, and finally sought to enhance the Compensation.

II. BRIEF FACTS:-

4. The case of the Claimants is that the 1st and 2nd Claimants are parents and the 3rd Claimant is brother of UzerAhammed/Deceased. That the said UzerAhammed was 19 years, on 10.02.2011 he was proceeding on a Motor Cycle but the Driver of Tractor and Trailor/AP 22 B 3127 and AP 22 B 3218 drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. In this regard a Crime No.12 of 2011 is registered by Hindupur, II Town Police under Section 304-A of IPC against the Driver of the Tractor. The claim is filed for Rs.6,65,000/- against the Owner and Insurance Company.

5. There is no dispute after conclusion of the arguments on the road accident, negligence of the Driver of the Tractor, death of UzerAhammed in the road accident, insuring the Tractor with the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company. The sole point to be answered is on the quantum of compensation.

                  There is no cavil of doubt on the powers of the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC to award just compensation in the Appeal.

6. Admittedly, UzerAhammed is a bachelor and aged 19 years old on the date of the accident, which was also recorded by the Tribunal. Though the Claimants pleaded that the deceased was doing a Cleaner job and doing business and that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but they did not specifically plead what the business he was doing. The Tribunal considered the material and assessed his income at Rs.100/- per day and annual income at Rs.36,000/-. This Court, considering that the Deceased was working as a cleaner and the year of the accident, inclined to assess his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, and annual income would be Rs.54,000/-. But the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “National Insurance Company v. PranaySethi (2017 ACJ 2700) held that 1/2 to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the bachelor, thus the contention of the Insurance Company is with merit, which is also fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the Claimants. Thus, his annual income would be Rs.27,000/- after 1/2 deduction for the bachelor.

7. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier ‘16’ referring to the age of the mother and age of the deceased, whereas the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that considering his mother’s age of 38 years, the multiplier 15 be applied, which is also conceded by the learned counsel for the Claimants. But as per law in PranaySethi case supra, the deceased age of 19 years is to be taken, and the applicable multiplier is ‘18’. Thus, the Claimants are entitled to Rs.4,05,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal granted a lump sum of Rs.10,000/- under heads of Loss of Estate, love and affection and Transport Expenses.

8. But as per law in PranaySethi case supra, for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years.

9. The Parents/Claimants are also entitled to Consortium referred in judg-ment of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189).

10. Thus, the 1st and 2nd Claimants/Parents are entitled to Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of Consortium, total Rs.96,000/- for Consortium, Rs.18,000/-towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,000/- towards Funeral expenses in the place of lump sum of Rs.10,000/- granted for Loss of Estate, love and affection and Transport Expenses, duly enhancing 10% for every three years for the three heads.

11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows;