THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 249 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The present appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 11.11.2005 passed in O.P. No. 40 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar. The appellants herein filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one C. Sudheer Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 19.09.2000, from the respondents, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively. The first appellant is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd appellants are the children and the 4th and 5th appellants are the parents of the deceased. It was their case that on 19.09.2000, the deceased along with four others was going from Mahabubnagar to Hyderabad in a car bearing No. AIM-8585 and when the car was touching the limits of Thimmajipet of Kothur Mandal, at about 10.45 a.m., the lorry bearing No. AP22 T 6575 coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car of the deceased, due to which all the inmates of the car received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellants contended that the deceased was an engineering graduate and working as Project Engineer in Parnika Constructions Private Limited, Secunderabad, and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, and he was also getting agricultural income of Rs.1.00 lakh per annum by cultivation of Acs.10.00 of wet land owned by him at Avancha village, and used to contribute the same to the family. They claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased in the motor accident, payable by the respondents. The 2nd respondent- insurance company filed counter resisting the claim of the appellants, while the 1st respondent- owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A18 on their behalf, while no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, but Ex.B1 policy was marked. The Tribunal, having framed the issues and having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellants, payable by the respondents, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and apportioned the same amongst the appellants as detailed in the order under appeal, and accordingly allowed the petition in part with proportionate costs . Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as Project Engineer in Parnika Constructions Private Limited, Secunderabad, and getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, and to establish that the deceased was employed with Parnika Constructions Private Limited, as Project Engineer since March 1999, the appellants filed Ex.A7-appointment letter and examined P.W.3. Even though the appellants claimed that the deceased was appointed and working as Project Engineer since March 1999, the fact remains, they filed salary certificates of the deceased only for the period from April 2000 to September 2000. They have not assigned any reason as to why they have not filed salary certificates since the date of his appointment as Project Engineer. P.W.3, whom the appellants examined, is neither an employee nor responsible officer of the company in which the deceased was said to be working. He only happens to be one of the contractors of the company executing the works entrusted by them. On the other hand, the inquest report enclosed to the charge sheet marked as Ex.A2, showed the occupation of the deceased as contractor. In the absence of any positive evidence produced by the appellants to show that the deceased was working as Project Engineer and getting Rs.12,000/- per month, the Tribunal refused to rely on Ex.A7- appointment letter and other salary certificates. Further, the appellants though claimed that the deceased was getting agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/-, and to prove that the deceased was having agricultural land and doing agriculture marked Exs. A10 and A11, pahanies for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the fact remains, they have not filed any document or examined any revenue official to prove the income, which the deceased got by cultivation of the said land. Even though the appellants failed to prove the employment and income of the deceased as claimed by them in the O.P., the Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate, as is evident from the evidence produced by them, felt it appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day. The deceased, admittedly, is an Engineering Graduate. He completed Engineering in the year 1987. Considering the professional degree held by the deceased, and assuming that he was not an employee of the company, but was doing contract works, we are of the considered opinion, that his monthly income can be fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month, by taking into consideration the daily wage at Rs.300/-. Accordingly, we fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the deceased had four to six dependants, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of his income. In the case on hand, as the deceased at the time of his death, had five dependants, namely, wife, son, daughter, father and mother, 1/4th of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses, and on such deduction, his contribution to the family would come to (Rs.1,08,000/- - Rs. 27,000/-) Rs.81,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 38 years, and the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case, is ‘15’. If the multiplicand of Rs.81,000/- is multiplied by 15, the loss of dependency to the family would come to (Rs.81,000/- x 15) Rs.12,15,000/-. The amounts of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the 1st appellant towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- to the appellants towards loss of estate need not be disturbed. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.12,45,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.12,45,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 13th September, 2011 IBL [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121