THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1892 OF 2010 Dated 6.4.2011 Between: Tirunagari Vakula and another. …Appellants. And: Y.Rajanikanth Reddy and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1892 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 13.8.2010 passed in O.P.No.500 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-District Judge at Nalgonda. Appellants herein who are wife and daughter of the deceased are the petitioners-claimants and Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the owner of the car and Insurance Company respectively and respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. The parties will hereafter be referred as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Relying on the decision of the apex Court reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ([1]), Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the future addition to the income of the deceased and thus, according to him future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. It is also his submission that no amount was awarded towards loss of estate. He has also vehemently argued that the deceased had completed Post Graduate course in Tool, Die and Mould Design with Central Institute of Tool Design, Hyderabad and that he got an offer in Ashwan Marine Design Engineer in Dubai on a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/- with free family accommodation, but due to the untimely death, the deceased could not go to Dubai. Thus, his main contention is that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation and therefore, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation claimed by them. On the other hand, Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to say that the deceased was a permanent employee and therefore, the question of applying the principle laid down in SARLA VERMA’S case does not arise. It is her further submission that as far as the private sectors are concerned, there is no guarantee of service and therefore, their services cannot be treated as permanent jobs. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed by them? The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 21-4-2007 at about 4.40 P.M., the deceased and his colleagues were waiting for bus in front of their company i.e, Oil Country Tubular Limited (OCTL), situated at Narketpally, on National High Way No.9, at that time, one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-28-N- 777 came from Vijayawada side and proceeding towards Hyderabad, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased and others. As a result of this accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and though he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, for treatment, but he died on the same day while was undergoing treatment. In this connection, Police, Narketpally, registered a case against the driver of the Indica Car. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy aged about 33 years at the time of accident. He was working as an Engineer in Oil Country Tubular Limited (OCTL), Narketpally and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,900/- and used to contribute the entire earnings for maintenance and welfare of their family. The 1st claimant is the wife and 2nd claimant is the minor daughter of the deceased. Their specific case is that the deceased was the only sole bread winner of the family and they have lost his love and affection and suffered great mental agony. They have claimed a total compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only). It is the case of the 1st respondent who is the owner of the vehicle in question that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance company and if any compensation has to be paid, the 2nd respondent has to pay. The 2nd respondent filed a counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is also not admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with their Insurance Company and that the driver was having valid driving license on the date of accident. The 3rd and 4th respondents who are the parents of the deceased also filed counter contending that they are dependants on the income of the deceased and they are old aged parents of the deceased and are suffering from old aged ailments and their elder son was a unsound mind person and their deceased son used to contribute part of his earnings towards the maintenance of the family of his elder brother. The tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased died in the mother vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-28-N-7777? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. Ex.C.1. was also marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. On issue No.2, the Tribunal having regard to the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.6 Salary Certificate came to a conclusion that the income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,314/- and Rs.1,11,768/- per annum and that after deducting 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net contribution for the maintenance of the family at Rs.74,512/- (Rs.1,11,768/- minus 37,256/-). Holding that since the deceased was aged about 34 years and applying 17 multiplier, the Tribunal has determined the loss of dependency at Rs.12,66,704/-(Rs.74,512/- x 17) and accordingly awarded total compensation of Rs.12,66,704/- by adding an amount of 15,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and other expenses to the claimants. Admittedly, the future addition in the salary and future prospects of deceased were not taken into consideration. The apex Court in a decision 1st cited (Sarla Verma’s case), observed at paragraph 21 as follows: “The future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependents)’ and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs.2,000/- as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses.” Further, it is observed at para 24 as follows: “In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.” Thus, it is settled law that where the deceased had permanent job and below 40 years, addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects has to be taken into account. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the deceased had stable job? P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence shows that the deceased was aged about 33 years and had completed B.Tech. Mechanical Engineering from Kuvempu University, Karnataka State and also completed postgraduate course in Tool, Die and Mould Design with Central Institute of Tool Design, Hyderabad. It is also her case that the deceased had attended interview on 12-4-2007 i.e., just 10 days prior to the incident and was selected as Design Engineer in Ashwan Marine Design Engineers, Dubai country and he was offered a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/- and other facilities. P.W.1 was cross-examined at length but no suggestion was given to her that the deceased had no stable job in Oil Country Tubular Limited at Narketpally of Nalgonda District. P.W.2 G.Venu Babu is a personal Manager of Oil Country Tubular Limited at Narketpally of Nalgonda District (OCTL company). According to him, the deceased was working as an Engineer, in OCTL Company since 17-1-2001 to 21-4-2007 and that he was paying Rs.10,900/-/- per month towards his salary. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate issued by PW.2. He had also categorically deposed that had the deceased survived till April, 2009, he would have got an amount of Rs.21,000/- per month. P.W.2 was also cross-examined at length. In the cross examination, he has stated that the date of Birth of the deceased is 05-7-1972 and further deposed that the deceased is a permanent employee of their company. It has to be seen that the deceased was working in OCTL Company since 17-1-2001. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 21-4- 2007. This means for about 6 ½ years, the deceased has continuously worked in the said company. This itself reveals that the deceased was a permanent employee. Of course, the possibility of deceased resigning from his job cannot be ruled out, but, probably that situation may arise only in case where he would have got better opportunity with enhanced income. In the circumstances, following the decision of the apex Court 1st cited (Sarla Verma’s case), I feel it just and reasonable to take 50% of his income which comes to Rs.4657/- as addition to his actual salary. Thus, total income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.13,971/- per month (i.e., Rs.9314/- (actual salary)+ Rs.4657/ (50% of actual salary) and i.e., Rs.1,67,652/- per annum. Since the father of the deceased was getting pension of Rs.17,000/- per month, he may not be treated as dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, the total number of dependents come to 3 i.e., wife, daughter and mother. In view of the same, 1/3rd of salary has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, if 1/3rd (i.e., Rs.55,884/-/) is deducted from the income of the deceased i.e., Rs.1,67,652/-, the contribution to the family of the deceased comes to Rs.1,11,768/-. (i.e., Rs.1,67,652/- minus Rs.55,884/-). The appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision 1st cited is 17. So, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.19,00,056/- (i.e., Rs.1,11,768/-.x 17.) The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5000/- towards funeral and other expenses. Admittedly, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate and therefore, I feel it just and reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. With regard to granting of interest, the Tribunal appears to be right in awarding the interest at 7.5% p.a., Thus a total compensation of Rs.19,30,056/- (i.e., Rs.19,00,056/- + 15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral and other expenses, respectively already awarded by the Tribunal and also Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate awarded by this Court) is awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 1st claimant shall take Rs.10,30,056/- including consortium and 2nd claimant shall take Rs.7,00,000/- and respondents 3 and 4 shall take each Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest on their respective shares. The 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,30,056/- and claimants 3, 4 the total amounts awarded to them with accrued interest thereon. The amount awarded to 2nd claimant shall be kept in fixed deposit till she attains majority. However, 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw periodical interest accrued thereon. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 6-4-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1892 OF 2010 Dated 6-4-2011 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121