THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 204 of 2009 AND M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 10726 of 2009 Common Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) These two appeals are directed against the order dated 19.09.2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 2650 of 2006. M.A.C.M.A. No. 204 of 2009 is filed by APSRTC contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and needs reduction, while the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No.10726 of 2009 contending that compensation awarded is very low and needs enhancement. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. On 20.09.2006 at about 8.00 a.m., one Venkat Reddy, working as Head Constable in A.P. Special Police Force, was going on his Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. AP 9AL 7232 from his house to his office at Survey of India, Ramanthapur, he met with an accident when a bus bearing No. AP 11Z 3423 belonging to the respondents- APSRTC, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the two-wheeler from behind. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down and the front tyre of the bus ran over him, and he died on the spot. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants, who are his wife, children and mother, filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- contending that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. That had he been alive, he would have been promoted to the rank of Circle Inspector and there would have been atleast three revisions in his pay and would have earned about Rs.30,000/- by the date of his retirement. That he was aged 34 years at the time of his death and had 24 years of left over service. That they are dependant upon his income, and that due to his sudden death in the accident, they have lost the dependency. The respondents-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments made by the claimants. They denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. That the deceased himself was negligent while driving the two-wheeler. The deceased tried to overtake the bus from the left side and fell in front of the bus. There was no contact of the bus with the motorcycle. As there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, there are not liable to pay any compensation. The claim made by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and; whether the claimants entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A12 and Ex. X1, while the respondents neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver; So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.9,638/- per month, felt it reasonable to take his net average salary at Rs.12,000/- per month, and after deducting one- third of the said amount towards his personal expenses, worked out his contribution to the family at Rs.9,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,08,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 34 years, applied the multiplier 14 and worked out the future loss of dependency at Rs.15,12,000/-. Apart, from the said amounts, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,46,000/-. The learned counsel for APSRTC mainly submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- even though his gross salary was Rs.9,638/- per month, and contended that if the compensation is calculated basing on the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.9,638/-, the compensation payable would be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 34 years was working as Head Constable at the time of his death, and he had 24 years of left over service, and had he been alive, he would have earned promotions. Considering this, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at more than Rs.12,000/- per month. He further submitted that since the deceased had four dependants, only one-fourth of the income should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and the Tribunal committed an error in deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted that since the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of his death in the accident, the relevant multiplier applicable is 16, but the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier 14. He thus prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants be re-calculated and the compensation enhanced. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The deceased, admittedly, was working as Head Constable in A.P. Special Protection Force. Ex. A7-salary certificate shows that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.9,638/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken the average net monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. Though the APSRTC contends that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, the fact remains, the deceased at the time of his death in the accident, was aged 34 years, had permanent employment and had still 24 years of left over service, and had he been alive, he would have earned at least one or two promotions and he would have drawn increased salary. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Apex Court held that where the deceased was aged less than 40 years and had a permanent job, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased, should be made towards future prospects. If 50% of the actual salary is added to the actual salary, the salary of the deceased would be more than Rs.12,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal, but considering the fact that if the salary of the deceased is increased by 50%, he would also be liable to pay income tax, we are of the considered opinion that the income of the deceased, as taken by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- per month, need not be disturbed. The deceased, admittedly, is having four dependants, namely his wife, two children and mother. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, only one- fourth of the salary of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, if one-fourth is deducted from the salary of the deceased (Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-), his contribution to the family would be Rs.9,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. The deceased, admittedly, was aged 34 years at the time of the accident, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the relevant multiplier applicable is 16. Since the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 14, we deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier 16 for the purpose of calculating the future loss of dependency. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 16, (Rs.1,08,000/- x 16), the future loss of dependency would be Rs.17,28,000/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, only Rs.10,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the said heads, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/ each. Apart from the said amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 17,52,000/-. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 204 of 2009, filed by APSRTC is dismissed. While M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 10726 of 2009, filed by the claimants, is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 17,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 30th November, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121