THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 121 of 2008 Oral order: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) M/s. The Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed M.A.C.M.A. against the order dated 03.10.2007, passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P. No. 1047 of 2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 10,44,500/- to the respondents-claimants, as against their claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- contending that the same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. On 16.10.2003, one Gadi Sudheer Kumar Yadav, who is a Junior Research Fellowship in Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, while going to his office from his house at about 10.15 A.M., met with an accident when a lorry bearing registration No. AP 11 W 6615, belonging to respondent No.3 and insured with the appellant, and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit his motor cycle from behind. Immediately, he was rushed to Kamineni Hospital, but he was declared brought dead. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the lorry. The deceased at the time of accident, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as Junior Research Fellowship in Indian Institute of Chemical Technology and was anticipating permanent job in the said organization. On account of his untimely death in the accident, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, file the above M.V.O.P. against the appellant and respondent No.3 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- contending the deceased was the only earning member in the family and that they have lost dependency in their old age. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. While the appellant filed counter denying the averments made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the M.V.O.P. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A6, but on behalf of the appellant none was examined, but they got marked Ex. B1. The Tribunal having considered the issues framed by it in the light of the evidence let in by the parties held that the accident in which the deceased died occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, and therefore, respondent No.3-owner of the lorry and the appellant, with whom the lorry was insured, are liable to pay the compensation. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the fact that the deceased as Junior Research Fellowship was getting Rs.10,000/- per month, took the said amount as his monthly income and arrived at his annual income at Rs.1,20,000/-, and further considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and that even if he is married, he would contribute 1/3rd of his income to his parents, felt it appropriate to deduct one-third to his personal expenses, and arrived the loss of dependency at (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.40,000/) Rs.80,000/- and further considering the fact that the mother of the deceased was aged 45 years, applied the multiplier 13, and arrived the loss of dependency at (Rs.80,000/- x 13) Rs.10.40,000/- and further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,44,500/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants. Questioning the quantum of compensation, as noted supra, the appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal praying for reduction in the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that since the deceased was a bachelor and as after his marriage, his contribution to his parents would be very less, and considering the fact that respondent No.1 has himself admitted in his evidence that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the loss of dependency of respondent Nos.1 and 2- claimants more than 50% of his salary. Hence, he contended that the loss of dependency be re-calculated and the compensation reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants supported the award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the deceased though was a bachelor, was contributing his entire income to the family. However, the Tribunal after deducting one-third, has awarded the compensation, which being just compensation, needs no reduction, and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2- claimants. The contention of the appellant that since the deceased is a bachelor and after marriage his contribution to his parents would be reduced, and further having regard to the fact that the father of the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought not to have taken more than 50% of the salary of the deceased towards his contribution to the family, cannot be accepted in view of the three- Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Jayakodi v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.[1]. In the above case, a boy aged 17 years died in a motor accident. He was a bachelor. He came from a well-to-do family. He owned Acs.7.00 of land and was managing agricultural operations. His father was a practicing Advocate, while his mother was a housewife. He had brother and sisters. In such facts situation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted one-third towards his personal expenses, and arrived his contribution to the family at Rs.2,000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum and worked out the compensation. In appeal, the High Court, assessed the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.12,000/- per annum, and reduced the compensation. The Supreme Court in appeal by the claimants, found fault with the approach made by the High Court in reducing the compensation, and while setting aside the order of the High Court, confirmed the order of the Tribunal, in deducting one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The above judgment, which confirmed the order of the Tribunal that deducted only one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, despite his father being an Advocate, squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where the deceased also is a bachelor and his father earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, no fault can be found with order passed by the Tribunal deducting only one- third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. There is no dispute that the deceased as a Junior Research Fellowship in Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, is getting Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per month. If one-third of the said amount is deducted towards his personal expenses (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.40,000/-) his loss of contribution to the family would come to Rs.80,000/- per annum. Admittedly, as noted supra, the deceased is a bachelor, and as such, the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken. The mother of the deceased was aged 45 years. The Tribunal had taken the multiplier 13, which is the correct multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2]. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by 13 multiplier (Rs.80,000 x 13) the loss of dependency due to the death of the deceased would come to Rs.10,40,000/-, which the Tribunal has rightly worked out. This apart, as awarded by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants are also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus in all, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, are entitled to Rs.10,44,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 30th November, 2011 KSR [1] 2010 ACJ 697 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121