THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA NO.1243 OF 2007 Dated 23rd February, 2010 Between: The Branch Manager …Appellant And Eerappagari Nagarathna and others …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nandyal against award dated 7th September, 2006 in O.P.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the I-Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ananthapur (for short “the Tribunal”). For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The claimants are the legal heirs of one E.Yellappa (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). While the deceased and his friends were travelling in vehicle bearing registration No.TN 01 K 4223 (Tata Sumo) to Hyderabad to attend a wedding, the same met with an accident involving lorry bearing registration No.AP21 U 3039. While the Tata Sumo belongs to respondent No.1, the lorry belongs to respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4 (the appellant herein). On account of the collision of the Tata Sumo and the lorry, the deceased died. A criminal case in Crime No.103 of 2002 was registered in Pebbair Police Station against respondent No.2, the driver of the lorry, under Section 304-A IPC. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 33 years and working as Assistant Training Officer in Industrial Training Institute, Ananthapur, drawing a salary of Rs.6,667/- . The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.14,65,000/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has framed two issues. Issue No.1 relates as to who is responsible for causing the accident and issue No.2 relates to whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which respondents. Under issue No.1, the Tribunal found the drivers of both the vehicles responsible for the accident as they drove their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,667/- as the gross salary and accordingly computed the loss of income. At the hearing, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4-insurance Company, advanced three contentions, namely; (1) that the Tribunal has failed to take net salary for the purpose of computation of loss of income of the deceased; (2) that the Tribunal having found the drivers of both the vehicles negligent did not apportion the negligence between respondents 1 and 4 and (3) that the Tribunal has awarded excess interest at 9% instead of awarding 7.5%. Though notices were served, respondents 1 to 3 have not entered their appearance. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.4-appellant. With regard to the first submission of the learned counsel, the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Indira Srivastava[1], after reviewing the case law on this aspect, held that the words “net income” would ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory deductions. In this case, though the salary certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.A7, it is not specifically pleaded as to the nature of the deductions and whether the deductions shown in the salary certificate are statutory deductions or not. In the absence of such a specific plea having not been raised by respondent No.4, it is not possible for this Court to determine as to what components of the deductions contained in Ex.A7 salary certificate constitute statutory deductions. At any rate, even if the statutory deductions in the salary of the deceased were not excluded, this excessive assessment of income is offset by the fact that the Tribunal has not given any allowance for future increase of the salary, which was held permissible by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2]. It was held therein that if the deceased was holding a permanent job and was below 40 years of age, 50% of actual salary should be added towards future prospects. In this case, admittedly the deceased was aged 33 years and therefore, the claimants would have been entitled to much more compensation. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to accept this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.4. With regard to the submission pertaining to the failure of the Tribunal to apportion the liability, I find merit therein. The categorical finding of the Tribunal is that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident. In the absence of stipulation of degree of responsibility, it is reasonable to construe the award of the Tribunal as fixing equal responsibility on the drivers of both the vehicles for causing the accident. That being so, I find no justification for the Tribunal in not apportioning the liability in equal proportions. With regard to the submission relating to interest, ordinarily, the Courts and Tribunals are awarding the standard rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum. Therefore, I find award of 9% interest as excessive. For the above mentioned reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified as under- The liability for payment of compensation determined by the Tribunal is apportioned equally in the ratio of 50:50 between respondent No.1 on the one side and respondents 2 to 4 on the other. With respect to the liability regarding payment of 50% of compensation by respondents 2 to 4, all of them are jointly and severally liable. The claimants are entitled to recover the balance 50% from respondent No.1. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% per annum. The insurance company-appellant shall deposit the balance of its liability of 50% compensation before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd February, 2010 vrn [1] (2008) 2 SCC 763 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121