IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1084 OF 2007 Between : The National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager. .... Appellant AND Smt B.Mahalakshmi and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A. NO.1084 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: Insurance Company is the appellant. The award of compensation of a sum of Rs.9,09,352/- in favour of the respondents (claimants) in O.P.No.987 of 2004, dated 29.11.2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. The appellant on obtaining permission in I.A.No.2966 of 2006, dated 12.09.2006, under Section 170 of the M.V.Act, contested the claim of the appellant on merits. 3. On 20.09.2003 when the deceased B.Janakiram, was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.MVH 7188 along with his friend Abudl Hussain (pillion rider) a D.C.M. Van bearing registration No.AP-12-T-5564, of the second respondent dashed the motor cycle from behind and caused the death of B.Janakiram. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents and claimant No.4 is the brother of the deceased filed O.P.No.987 of 2004, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. The Tribunal formulated issues as follows: 1) Whether the accident which resulted for the death of B.Janakiram occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the D.C.M.Van and; 2) Whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and ; 3) To what relief? 5. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and examined one Abdulla Hussain as PW-2( pillion rider) and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No witnesses were examined on behalf of respondents, but Ex.B1 insurance policy alone was marked on behalf of the appellant herein. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the D.C.M.Van and held that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,09,352/-. Questioning the said compensation as excessive the insurance company has filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal committed error in accepting the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.6,058/-. According to the learned counsel there would be some deductions from the gross salary and therefore, such deductions should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In this regard, it is required to be noted the Tribunal relied on Ex.A5, which is the salary certificate. This Court perused Ex.A5 which shows that, the basic pay is Rs.3,970/-, G.C.B Rs.40/-, D.A Rs.1707/-, C.C.C. Rs.80/-,CPMA Rs.75/- and LRA Rs.186/- which comes to a total sum of Rs.6,058/-. As far as the debits are concerned it shows PF-SUB Rs.250/-, PF-REF Rs.800/-, GIS Rs.280/-, FAS Rs.30/-, BA Rs.2/-, Con-GIS (EMI) Rs.1230/-, Comp-FIS (EMI) Rs.869/- and PLI Rs.328/-, totaling a sum of Rs.3,789/-. The net pay is shown as Rs.2269/-. 9. From the above, the learned counsel would submit that at least some amounts representing FAS (Rs.30/-) BA (Rs.2/-) and PLI (Rs.328/-) are liable to be deducted from out of the gross salary and assess the income on the balance amount. However, the learned counsel could not explain how these amounts are deductable. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that these amounts are not statutory deductions, but they are voluntary payments. 11. This Court also perused the evidence of PW-1. There is no cross examination on behalf of appellant on these aspects. As explained by the learned counsel for the respondents GIS stands for Group Insurance Scheme and PLI sands for Postal Life Insurance and COMP-GIS stands for Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme which are voluntary payments. Such payments would accrue to the benefit of the individual. This Court is therefore, unable to agree that voluntary payments are liable to be deducted. The gross salary of the deceased was Rs.6,058/- and hence it was not amenable to the income tax. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.A5 and accepted the income as Rs.6,058/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier as ‘18’. There is no dispute that the deceased was aged about 27 years as per Ex.A6. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], it is true that the right multiplier in the instant case it is ‘17’ 12. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that although the multiplier ‘17’ is applicable, the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th as held by the Apex Court in the said Judgment. 13. In the instant case, there were four dependents as per the aforesaid Judgment only 1/4th liability to be deducted. Having regard to the above, pecuniary loss would come to Rs.12,35,832/- (Rs.6058 X 12X17). (1/4th is deducted from out of the said amount it would come to Rs.9,26,874/- (Rs.12,35,832 (-) 308958/-). The Tribunal has however, awarded Rs.8,72,352/- only. It may be noted that even if the small amounts such as FAS (Rs.30/-) / BA (Rs.2/-) and PLI (Rs.328/-) (Total Rs.360/-) which are objected to by the appellant are deducted from the gross salary, the pecuniary loss would be approximately same as awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium in favour of the claimant No.1 and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. In view of the above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J JULY 01, 2010. YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298