IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3184 OF 1998 BETWEEN Chatla Laxmamma and five others. …APPELLANTS AND; S. N. Patwari and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. P. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Gopal Das Mrs. P. Niveditha Reddy The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimants to the extent of the disallowed claim in O.P.No.634 of 1994 filed before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The claimants had preferred the aforesaid claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of the death of the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 6. The deceased, Pentaiah, died in a road accident, which occurred on 16.08.1994. The said accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a two wheeler bearing No. AHP 5755, which was driven by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent. In the said claim petition, the claimants contended that the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle resulted in criminal proceedings in Cr.No.491 of 1994 of Saroornagar Police Station against the second respondent and on account of the said accident, the deceased fell down and received serious head injury to which he succumbed and the claim for compensation was accordingly made. 3. The claims tribunal found on evidence that the accident was caused and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle. To the extent of liability the tribunal found that Ex.B1 policy of insurance clearly shows that the offending vehicle is covered by the said insurance policy. On the quantum the tribunal followed the decisions of the Supreme Court Manjusri Raha v. B.L. Gupta [AIR 1977 SC 1158] and Ha Deo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation [AIR 1992 SC 1261] and came to the conclusion that keeping in view the net salary of the deceased being Rs.2,635/- per month and taking into consideration his age as 51 years on the date of the accident and multiplier 7 as provided in the decision of Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif [1987 (2) ALT 137] the compensation payable would work out to Rs.1,09,200/-. The tribunal added a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant and claimants were also held entitled to a conventional amount of Rs.15,000/-, thus, an aggregate award for Rs.1,29,200/- was passed. To extent of disallowing the rest of the claim the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and contends that the net salary of the deceased even if taken as Rs.2,635/-, as determined by the tribunal, the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects. He also contends that the multiplier, as adopted by the tribunal, is on a much lower side and as per the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘11’. He also contends that the deduction from the income cannot exceed more that 1/3rd as per the decision referred to above and it is, therefore, contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal below deserves to be revised appropriately. Learned counsel further submits that the fourth respondent – mother of the deceased has since died during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants are only the legal heirs of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that since the deceased was held to be 51 years old, as per Para 11 of the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) for the age group of 42 to 50, an addition of 30% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased is permissible and above the age of 50 years there should be no addition to the income. Learned counsel also submits that the interest awarded by the tribunal is 12% whereas the Supreme Court and this Court have been consistently awarding interest at 7.5%. He, therefore, submits that even though there is no appeal by the insurance company, the rate of interest is required to be scaled down. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. Since this appeal is by the claimants, the other aspects regarding rash and negligent driving and the liability of the insurance company being not in controversy, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation as prayed for. 8. It is, no doubt, true that as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court has reviewed the entire case law on the subject and has authoritatively laid down the criteria applicable in different fact situations. The multipliers have also been standardized by taking into consideration various decisions including the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the aforesaid decision, therefore, the net salary of the deceased viz. Rs.2,635/- is required to be further standardized by adding or deducting the components thereto towards future prospects on the one hand and deduction of personal expenses therefrom. As per Para 11 of the aforesaid decision in case of the age of the deceased being between 42 to 50 years 30% addition is permissible to the net salary. As per the claim statement the age of the deceased is shown as 38 years and that he was working as Kamati and drawing gross salary of Rs.3,000/- per month whereas the tribunal below has taken the age of the deceased as 51 years based upon the evidence of P.W.3, who is a clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. He was examined by the claimants to prove Ex.A6 salary certificate. The said clerk in his deposition stated that as per the records the deceased was born on 01.09.1943 and as on the date of accident i.e. 16.08.1994, the deceased was aged about 51 years. P.W.3 has not filed any document in support of his evidence. However, the cross-examination of the insurance company, on the contrary, was that P.W.3 was not authorized by the Assistant Medical Officer to give evidence in the case. However, the statement regarding the date of birth of the deceased as spoken to by P.W.3 is taken into consideration by the tribunal below. 9. However, since there is substantial difference with regard to the age as claimed by the claimants and as stated by P.W.3 and in the absence of any other evidence, it would be appropriate to proceed on the footing that the age of the deceased was about 50 years and therefore, in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra), addition of 30% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects is permissible. Further, out of the said total amount 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment and after deducting 1/4th thereof towards personal expenses, multiplier ‘11’ is applicable for calculating the dependency by the aforesaid method. Thus, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.3,47,820/-. 10. The award of the tribunal below, therefore, deserves to be modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,29,200/- to Rs.3,47,820/- and the said enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 6, 2009 DSK [1] 2009 ACJ 1298