THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 3316 of 2005 Oral order: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Warangal, has filed this M.A.C.M.A. against the award dated 25.01.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, in O.P. No. 1067 of 2002, awarding compensation of Rs.20,60,000/- to the respondents-claimants as against their claim for Rs.24,00,000/-, contending that the same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. On 07.08.2002, one Yerragudla Moses Pradeep Kumar, who was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jeliaram Branch, was returning home along with his two colleagues after attending the Officers’ Conference at the Zonal Office, Warangal, and on reaching Godavarikhani, at about 2.30 a.m., he met with an accident when the car in which he was traveling dashed against a tree. As a result of the accident, the deceased died, while his colleagues suffered grievous injuries. On account of his death, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- stating that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 45 years, was earning Rs.2,27,000/- per annum, that they are dependent upon him, and that due to his untimely death, they have lost their dependency. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are the owner of the car and the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured remained ex parte. However, the appellant filed counter stating that they are not aware of the accident. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 must prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. They must also prove that the deceased was earning Rs.2,27,000/- per annum as Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad. The compensation claimed by them is excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal having regard to the rival pleadings, framed issues, namely whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, what was the income the deceased as on the date of the accident, and whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked documents Exs. A1 to A8 and X1 and X2, and no evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 19,500/-, and considering the fact that the deceased was married and was having dependents, deducted one-third towards his personal expenses, and worked out his contribution to the family at Rs.1,56,000/-, and as the deceased was aged 46 years, applied the multiplier 11 and worked out the compensation to Rs.20,28,000/-. Apart from the said sum, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal, awarded Rs.20,60,000/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4- claimants. None appeared for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the net salary and not the gross salary of the deceased should be taken, and the Tribunal, in the instant case, committed an error in taking the gross salary of the deceased, for the purpose of calculating the compensation. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted, because except certain allowances, no other part of the salary can be deducted. As can be seen from the award under appeal, the monthly gross salary of the deceased as is evident from Ex. X1, is Rs.19,455.96 ps. Though respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants produced Ex. X1-salary certificate of the deceased, the fact remains, the appellant failed to produce any evidence to discredit the same. The same having not stood impeached, no exception can be taken to the award of the Tribunal taking the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation. The Tribunal having rounded the salary of the deceased to Rs.19,500/- per month i.e. Rs.2,34,000/- per annum, deducted one third of the same towards his personal expenses i.e. Rs.78,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the appellant is having four dependants. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the deceased has four to six dependents, only one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not file any cross appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the deduction of one-third made by the Tribunal from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Admittedly, after deduction of one-third of the salary towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived his contribution to the family at Rs.1,56,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 46 years. Though the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier 10.45 basing on the judgment in Bhagwandas v. Mohd Arif[2], the same having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, cannot be accepted. As per the said judgment, the relevant multiplier applicable for a person aged 46 to 50 years is 1`3. Since the deceased, as noted above, was aged 46 years, no fault can be found with the Tribunal in applying the multiplier 13. The Tribunal, therefore having multiplied the dependency with the multiplier 13, has rightly arrived the compensation at Rs. 20,28,000/-, As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, only Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- can be awarded under the heads “loss of estate” and “loss of consortium”. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the heads “loss of estate” and “loss of consortium”, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each under the said heads. The compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses stands undisturbed. Thus, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,50,000/-. Even though respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants are entitled to higher amounts than what the Tribunal has awarded, but as they did not file any cross appeal, we are not inclined to grant any enhancement, and reduce the compensation from Rs.20,60,000/- to Rs. 20,50,000/-, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. till the date of realization, which the appellant, the owner of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 20th December, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] AIR 1988 AP 99