THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3426 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.577 or 1999, dated 22.5.2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present C.M.A. is filed on the ground that the lower Court ought to have taken a gross monthly income of the petitioner instead of taking net pay of the petitioner and that the lower Court ought to have applied the relevant multiplier. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Petitioners filed claim for a compensation of Rs. 5,15,050/- for the death of the deceased Paidipalli Chandraiah (hereinafter referred to as deceased). Petitioners in support of their claim examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3.On behalf of the respondent Ex.B-1 copy of the insurance policy was marked. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal below held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the 1st respondent resulting death of the deceased and therefore, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Admittedly, the deceased is an employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. P.W.3 is an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani was examined as P.W-1 to prove the salary particulars of the deceased and during his evidence Exs.A-6 to A-8 were marked. As seen from the Exs.A-5 and A-8, the deceased was 40 years old at the time of the death. As seen from Ex.A-6, the pay slip of the deceased for the month of July, 1998 i.e. the gross salary for that month was Rs. 5,000/- and net salary was Rs. 4,100/-. The deceased at the time of his death, was working as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited at Godavarikhani. As seen from Ex.A-7, the statement of annual income of the petitioner from August, 1997 to July, 1998 i.e. the gross wages for that period was Rs.50,585/- and net payments were Rs. 30,507/- and yearly bonus was Rs.3,050/-. The lower Court while taking into consideration, the fluctuations of the wages of the deceased, the net payments received by the deceased for the year 1997-98 were taken into consideration for concluding the compensation awardable to the petitioners and also the yearly bonus of Rs. 3,050/-. In my view, for calculating the compensation, the gross income in the present case has to be taken into consideration. As per Ex.A-7 the gross wages of the deceased for the year 19976-98 was Rs. 50,555/- per annum. The petitioners are four in number. Therefore, in the above said amount 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased (vide Sarla Varma’s case(1st cited supra), after deducting the same, the actual loss of dependency suffered by the petitioners would work out to Rs. 37,905/- per annum. (Rs. 50,555/- - 12, 639/- (rounded to Rs. 12,650/-) (1/4th of Rs.50,555/- = Rs.37,905). At the time of the death, the deceased was 40 years and appropriate multiplier adoptable in this case is 15 (as per Sarla Varma’s case (1st cited supra). By adopting the said multiplier, the compensation awardable to the petitioners would work out at Rs. 5,68,575/- (Rs. 37,905/- x 15) and it is rounded to Rs. 5,68,600/-. In the lower Court, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards the consortium and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards the loss of estate. The claim of the petitioners in the lower Court is Rs.5,15,050/-. In view of my aforesaid observations cited supra, the amount of compensation awarded is restricted to the total claim of compensation of Rs. 5,15,050/- as claimed by the petitioners in the lower Court. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 9.3.2011 CHV