HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1940 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-09-2002 in M.V.O.P.No.937 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 5 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased Kaveti Kondaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08-05-2000. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased along with others was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP 04 C 669 from Porumamilla to Hyderabad and when the Jeep reached near Shakhapur village, a lorry bearing No.ATQ 1199 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against the Jeep, as a result of which, the Jeep overturned and the deceased died on the spot. It is further pleaded that the deceased was working as a police constable and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. The owner and the insurer of the lorry filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 5. During the course of enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- and accordingly an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7 . The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, is not seriously challenged. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the multiplier ‘11’ applied by the Tribunal is not proper and the II Schedule of M.V.Act is not applicable to the present case, as the income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/- per annum. 9. It is not disputed that the deceased was working as police constable and he was aged 54 years by the date of accident. Ex.A-5-Salary Certificate would show that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.6,659/- and after excluding deductions in a sum of Rs.1,050/-, he was getting a net salary of Rs.5,609/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the basic pay of Rs.5,300/- by adding Rs.400/- per month towards future increments. The total salary for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency was taken as Rs.5,700/- per month. Taking an additional amount of Rs.400/- per month towards future increments is rather unwarranted. In fact, Ex.A-5 shows that the deceased was getting a net salary of Rs.5,609/- and the Tribunal ought to have taken the said amount into consideration and major portion of the deductions as per Ex.A-5 is towards G.P.F. in a sum of Rs.500/- and A.P.G.L.I. in a sum of Rs.100/-, which are also part of the earnings of the deceased and on account of his death, the claimants are deprived of the benefit of the same. When the said amounts of contribution towards G.P.F. and A.P.G.L.I. are also taken into consideration, the income of the deceased was certainly exceeding Rs.5,700/- per month. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs.5,700/- per month taken by the Tribunal into consideration is considered justifiable and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.3,800/-, as noted by the Tribunal. Though II Schedule of the M.V.Act is not applicable to the present case as the income of the deceased was exceeding Rs.40,000/- per annum, even as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, the suitable multiplier for the present age 54 years is ‘11’, which in fact is the multiplier applied by the Tribunal also. The loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.5,01,600/- is, therefore, considered to be just and reasonable and is in accordance with law and the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses are also considered to be just and reasonable. Thus, viewed from any angle, the total amount of Rs.5,13,600/- rounded off to Rs.5,14,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation does not call for any interference. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date:25-11-2009 Prv