THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 439 of 2005 and Cross Objections (SR). No. 17815 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed in O.P. No. 81 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and needs to be reduced, while the claimants preferred cross-objections contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Respondents 1 to 6 in the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the appellant and respondent No.7, for the death of one Aldas Srinu in a motor accident occurred on 30.12.2001. Respondent No.1 is wife, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. It was their case that on 30.12.2001, the deceased and others were returning to Suryapet from Hyderabad, in a Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing No. AP-16-N-1111, and at about 1.00 a.m., when the vehicle reached Yellagiri Village limits of Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, a lorry bearing No. ABK 5654 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Tata Sumo vehicle in which the deceased and others were traveling, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 31 years and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month by working in three colleges and they are wholly dependent on his earnings. They claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the motor accident, payable by respondent No.7 who is the owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant-insurance company. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A11 on their behalf, while no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.7, but Ex.B1 policy was marked. The Tribunal, having framed the issues and having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and that respondent No.7 being the owner of the crime lorry is vicariously liable for the wrongful act of his driver and the appellant-insurance company being the insurer of the crime vehicle is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.7. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,99,500/- to the claimants, payable by the appellant and respondent No.7 jointly, with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount, and apportioned the same among the claimants as detailed in the order under appeal, and accordingly allowed the petition in part. The counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. He further contended that as the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision of the Apex Court i n Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], is ‘16’, and the rate of interest shall also be reduced to 6% per annum, in view of the said decision. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the claimants- cross-objectors submitted that though the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and the salary certificates of the deceased marked under Exs.A5 to A7 show the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- and odd, but the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- only. He further submitted that as the dependants are six in number, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of his income, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case and Rs.5,000/- has to be granted towards loss of estate. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- cannot be accepted. As seen from the evidence on record, the deceased was a postgraduate in History and Ex.A9 certificate issued by the Osmania University proves the same. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 coupled with Exs. A5 to A7, salary certificates, shows that the deceased used to work as Lecturer in three colleges and earn about Rs.16,000/- per month. Though the evidence show that the deceased used to earn Rs.16,000/- per month, but the Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was working in private colleges, felt it appropriate to take the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Even otherwise, considering the educational qualification of the deceased, who is a postgraduate in History, we are of the considered opinion that his income can safely be taken at Rs.10,000/- per month, and as such, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. The annual income of the deceased thus comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma case, as the deceased had six dependants, the deduction towards his personal expenses should be 1/4th and on such deduction, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.90,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of accident, as per his Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, A.P, Hyderabad, which was marked as Ex.A10. Thus, the appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case, is ‘16’. If the multiplicand of Rs.90,000/- is multiplied by 16, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.14,40,000/-. In addition, as per Sarla Verma case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The 1st claimant, who is the widow of the deceased, is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.14,60,000/- and in view of the decision of Sarla Verma case, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal amongst the claimants stands undisturbed. In addition, the parents of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/- each from out of the enhanced compensation and the remaining amount shall be taken by the widow of the deceased. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and allow the cross- objections in part. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 3rd August, 2011 IBL [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121