THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. No. 3638 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2005 in O.P.No.2392 of 2003, on the file of XIII-Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for compensation is allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Raghava Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.07.2003. The 1st claimant is wife and 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased. The 3rd respondent- owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing its liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the appellant. 5. On a consideration of evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 9W 5018. The said finding is not seriously challenged in the present appeal. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month, though as per the salary certificate-Ex.A6, the deceased was getting a net salary of only Rs.1897.50 p. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased at 59 years and applying the multiplier ‘8’, though he was aged 63 years and the suitable multiplier would be ‘7’. 7. In so far as the age of the deceased is concerned, in Ex.A3- inquest report, it is shown as 63 years, but Ex.A5-post-mortem report shows the age as 55 years. The Tribunal has, therefore, taken the age as 59 years and adopted the multiplier ‘8’. As per the recent decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age of 59 years would be ‘9’. But the claimant has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement. If the age is taken as 55 years as mentioned in the Ex.A5-post-mortem report, the suitable multiplier would be ‘11’ and if it is taken as 63 years as mentioned in Ex.A3-inquest report, the suitable multiplier would be ‘7’. As the claimant has not preferred any appeal, it is considered unfair to adopt a multiplier higher than the one adopted by the Tribunal in this appeal filed by the insurer. In the circumstances, it is considered just and expedient to retain the multiplier ‘8’ adopted by the Tribunal. 8. However, in so far as the wages are concerned, Ex.A6-salary certificate shows that the deceased was earning gross income of Rs.2,200/- per month, and after deducting Rs.38.50 ps. towards ESI and Rs.264/- towards provident fund, he was getting net pay of Rs.1897.50 ps. as the two amounts of deduction are in the nature of deferred wages, it is considered that they shall also be taken into account while estimating the loss of dependency as they form part of the salary income of the deceased. However, there is absolutely no justification for taking the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month, as there is no basis for the said amount which is taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 9. In the circumstances, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/- per month and applying the multiplier ‘8’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,40,800/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the first claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,60,800/-. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 31st October, 2011 KSM [1] 2009 ACJ 1298