THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 891 and 5211 of 2008 Common Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana,J) These two appeals, the first by the Insurance Company and the second by the claimants, are directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Karimnagar, in O.P. No. 375 of 2006, the Insurance Company contending that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and needs reduction while the claimants contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and needs to be increased. The parties shall be referred to by their status in the O.P. On 20.03.2006 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Gurram Venkatesham and his colleague Mamidi Madunaiah, while riding Kawasaki motorcycle from 9-Incline to Godavarikani, met with an accident, when another Hero Honda Passion motorcycle, coming from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit them. The deceased died on the spot, while his colleague received grievous injuries. Therefore, claiming compensation for his death, the petitioners-claimants, who are his wife, mother and daughters, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-, against the owner of the Hero Honda and the Insurance Company, with which it was insured, contending that the deceased was working as Coal Filler in Singareni Colleries, he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, and due to his sudden death in the accident, they have lost their bread and butter. Respondent No.1- owner of Hero Honda motorcycle filed counter contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not because of him, and therefore, the petitioners-claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company also filed counter that as the accident took place due to head on collision of two vehicles, it is for the Tribunal to decide as to who is at fault. He disputed the age and income of the deceased and contended that the petitioners- claimants have to prove that he is the owner of the motorcycle on which he was riding and that both the vehicle owners were having valid license and they lastly contended that the claim made by the petitioners-claimants highly excessive. The petitioners-claimants on their behalf examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A6, while respondent No.2- Insurance Company examined none, but marked Ex. B1. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The Tribunal took the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- which comes to Rs.96,000/- per annum, and considering the age of the deceased at 50, applied the multiplier of 11 and worked out the compensation at Rs.10,56,000/- and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, worked out his contribution to his family at Rs.7,04,000/-, and to the said sum, the Tribunal added Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, and thus in all awarded Rs.7,13,500/- to the petitioners-claimants. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimants and perused the judgment and decree under appeal. The deceased, admittedly, died in a motor accident on 20.03.2006. The deceased at the time of his death was working as Coal Filler in 9-Incline of Singareni Colleries, Godavarikhani. As per Ex. A6-certificate issued by Superintendent of Mines, the claimant was getting a monthly gross salary of Rs.12,062.18 ps. The Tribunal, for the purpose of computing the compensation, took the salary of the decased at Rs.8,121.51 ps. by deducting Rs.3,940.51 ps. towards LIC, allowances, HRA etc., and rounded off the same to Rs.8,000/- and worked out the compensation to Rs.96,000/- per annum. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has instead of taking the gross salary of the deceased has taken the net salary of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation. For the purpose of computing the compensation, only tax liabilities, are to be deducted. As noticed above, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.12,062/-, which is inclusive of bonus of Rs.1,096/-. The bonus amount cannot be deducted from the salary of the deceased. From out of the said amount of salary, 10% has to be deducted towards income tax, which comes to Rs.1,206/-, and upon such deduction, the monthly salary of the deceased would come to Rs.10,856/-. Of the said amount, one-third i.e. Rs. 3,618/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and upon such deduction, his monthly contribution to the family would come to Rs.7,238/- per month i.e. Rs.86,856/- per annum. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that since the deceased as on the date of his death in the accident was aged about 50 years, the Tribunal having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif[1], ought to have applied the multiplier of 7.08 instead of the multiplier 11 applied by it. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased at the time of his death was aged 40 years. The claimants, to prove that the deceased was aged 40 years examined P.W.2. P.W.2, who is the Welfare Officer, in his evidence stated that the date of birth of the deceased is 11.04.1961. However, no record was produced to show that the date of birth and that the deceased was 40 years as on the date of his accident. On the other hand, P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, herself in her evidence stated that the deceased was aged 45 years, which is contrary to the stand taken by the claimants. Ex. A3, which is post-mortem report of the deceased also shows that the deceased was 45 years. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex. A3, we are of the considered opinion that the age of the deceased can be safely be taken at 45. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the relevant multiplier that has to be taken for the person aged 45 years is 14. Thus the loss of dependency of the claimants would come to (Rs.86,856/- x 14) Rs. 12,15,984/-. Apart from the above amount, claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, and the amount needs enhancement, and accordingly they are enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,28,484/-. Accordingly, the appeal M.A.C.M.A. No. 891 of 2008 filed by the claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,13,500/- to Rs.12,28,484/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of filing claim petition till the date of realization. While the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 5211 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 14th September, 2011 KSR [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121