THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2476 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 16.03.2005 in O.P No.615 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karimnagar, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. by awarding compensation of Rs.1,56,800/-. The claimants are the appellants, who being wife and minor children of the deceased filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- filed for the death of one Srinivasa Rao (for short ‘the deceased’) in an accident that occurred on 18.05.1997 at about 3.30 p.m. On that day, the deceased along with one Kotekal Siva Prasad was coming from autonagar towards I town office Vijayawada on a TVS champ moped being driven by the deceased and when they reached near Ramavarappadu in front of Zion Bible college road near power house Gunadala, one ambassador car bearing No.AP 16 K 4034 (insured with respondent No.3) driven by the first respondent, who was working under respondent No.2, at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the moped, due to which the deceased and Siva Prasad fell down and the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was 38 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Assistant Manager in South Eastern Roadways, Transport, Vijayawada. The first and second respondents remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter- affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 – attested copies of charge sheet, F.I.R., Inquest Report, scene of offence panchanama, identification report and pay slip. On behalf of the insurance company, no witness was examined, but Ex.B-1 - insurance policy was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the first respondent and the second respondent is the owner and the third respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle and that all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, which the claimants are entitled to receive. Since the salary certificate – Ex.A-6, which shows the salary of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, was not proved, the Tribunal took basic of Rs.1,200/- per month as his income and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his monthly income was arrived at Rs.800/- and accordingly, his annual income was calculated at Rs.9,600/- (800 X 12). Since the age of the deceased was 38 years, the Tribunal took the multiplier ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of earnings was arrived at Rs.1,24,800/- (9600 X 13). In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded further sums of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,56,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month though salary certificate was produced showing that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as Assistant Manager, South Eastern Roadways Transport, Vijayawada. The learned counsel for the third respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the appellants/claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and in the absence of any contra evidence produced by the respondents, it can be notionally taken at Rs.2,000/- per month, which in my view would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, his annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. Hence, after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.16,000/- . The relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is ‘15’ and if the same is applied, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (16000 X 15). The further sums awarded by the Tribunal are not valid except Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Apart from the above, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which the appellants/claimants are entitled to comes to Rs.2,62,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,56,800/- to Rs.2,62,000/-, which shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129