THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 1559 of 2006 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellants-claimants filed this appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 18.04.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, in O.P. No. 1078 of 2002, contending that the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- awarded as against their claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- is meagre and needs to be enhanced. On 15.07.2002, while the deceased G. Vara Prasad and his cousin Joseph were returning to their homes on their respective vehicles after shopping, the deceased met with an accident at about 9.40 p.m. at Jubilee Bus Station, Secunderabad, when a bus bearing No. AP 11Z 343 hit the scooter bearing No. AHS 3437 of the deceased. The deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The appellants-claimants, who are his wife and three children, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 45 years. She was working as Assistant Officer in ECIL and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,127/- and that he was contributing the entire amount to the family, and that as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which belongs to the respondent, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The respondent filed counter denying the involvement of their bus in the accident as no accident has taken place. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. They further state that the claimants, who claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased, have to prove the age and income of the deceased and the loss of dependency, and the compensation claimed is very excessive. Before the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A6, while the respondent examined R.W.1 and marked Ex. B1. The Tribunal considering the evidence and rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the deceased died, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that the appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased was working as Assistant Officer in ECIL and as is evident from Ex. A6-salary certificate and evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.14,055/-, but the Tribunal has erroneously taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation. He further submitted that the deceased at the time of his death was aged 45 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 15, but the Tribunal committed an error in applying 10 multiplier. He further submitted that as the deceased was having 15 years of left over service, and would have earned promotions, the Tribunal ought to have added some more amount to the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that as the deceased had four dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth of the salary towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance towards his contribution to the family. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-claimant contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver by relying upon Ex.B1-certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 1205 of 2002, dated 07.07.2003, whereby the driver of the bus was acquitted. He further justified the awarding of the compensation by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC. The contention of the respondent-APSRTC that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, cannot be considered in the appeal filed by the claimants as they did not file any appeal or cross-objection questioning the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. According to the appellants, the deceased at the time of the accident was working as Assistant Officer and was earning Rs.14,055/- per month as is evident from Ex. A6-salary certificate. However, the fact remains, the appellants-claimants failed to prove Ex. A6-salary certificate conclusively, as P.W.3, who is the Senior Personnel Officer, in his evidence stated that without looking into the records he cannot say as to what is the exact take home salary of the deceased and that there would be standard deductions towards GPF, profession tax, income tax and other loans, and that Ex. A6-salary certificate does not reflect the same. As the appellants-claimants failed to conclusively prove Ex. A6-salary certificate, the Tribunal considering the employment of the deceased in ECIL, felt it appropriate to take his monthly salary at Rs.9,000/- per month, and we find any error. The deceased at the time of his death was 45 years and six months, and considering the fact that he was having left over service of nearly 15 years of service, he would have earned promotions and got higher salary, and per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], an amount of 30% of actual salary has to be taken towards future prospects. Thus the salary of the deceased would be (Rs.9,000/- + Rs. 2,700/-) Rs.11,700/- per month). As the deceased had four dependants, i.e. wife and three children, as per the judgment in Sarla Verma (referred to supra), one-fourth of the salary should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus the contribution by the deceased to his family would be (Rs.11,700/- - Rs. 2,925/-) Rs. 8,775/- per month and Rs.1,05,300/- per annum. The deceased at the time of his death, was aged about 45 years and six months, and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, the relevant multiplier that is applicable is 13. Thus the appellants-claimants are entitled to (Rs.1,05,300/- x 13) Rs.13,68,900/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from the said amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants- claimants are entitled to Rs.23,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and while appellant No.1-claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs. 13,98,900/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,50,000/- to Rs.14,18,900/- with interest 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 5th September, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121