HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.Nos.3978 of 2003 and 2103 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.3978 of 2003 is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited while C.M.A.No.2103 of 2009 is filed by claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04-02-2003 in O.P.No.1093 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 06-11-2000 at about 4 p.m. when M.Ram Bhupal was going on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-21D- 4400, the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-21V-1906 and 1907 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said motor cycle resulting in his death. Mother, wife and daughters of the deceased filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 for the claimants and RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 for the respondents in OP, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment, as against the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident by holding that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants as well as the insurance company filed the above appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for claimants. 4. Learned standing counsel for the insurance company vehemently contended that the driver of the tractor-trailer was not having valid driving licence to drive the tractor and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He contended that nobody was examined to prove Ex.A-6 salary certificate, therefore Ex.A-6 cannot be relied upon for fixing the income of the deceased. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly salary without making statutory and other deductions. 5. Learned counsel for claimants contended that the driver of tractor was having valid licence even though it is sufficient to drive LMV, but in spite of that, the insurance company cannot be exonerated of its liability against third parties. He further contended that Ex.A-6 salary certificate issued by the concerned police department was marked without any objection and as such, it has to be relied upon. He also contended that since there are four claimants, one-fourth of the salary has to be deducted towards personal living expenses, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1] and that the deceased was aged 31 years and as such, 50% of the salary has to be added for determination of future prospects. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The finding as to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor- trailer is not in dispute. The first contention of the insurance company that the tractor driver was having fake driving licence cannot be accepted for the reason that the insurance has to prove that the owner had knowledge of the invalid licence, which is not done in the instant case. Apart from that, Ex.B-2 shows that the driver had obtained driving licence to drive transport heavy goods vehicle and also heavy passenger vehicle. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the deceased was working as Police Constable and Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate issued by the Police Department. Ex.A-6 salary certificate shows that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.4,774/- per month and it is not disputed that the salary is subject to statutory deductions. Having regard to the official status of the deceased, I am inclined to take the net monthly at Rs.4,400/- after deductions. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 31 years and was working in State Police Department and he would have earned promotions in his service and therefore, I am inclined to take half of his net salary by following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in SARLA VARMA (1 supra) and as such, half of the salary works out to Rs.2,200/-, thus the total loss of dependency and future prospects works out to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.4400 + 2200) per month and it works out to Rs.79,200/- per annum out of which, one-fourth has to be deducted as there are four claimants and the net loss of dependency including loss on account of future prospects comes to Rs.59,400/- per annum. The deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident and the multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased is '16' as per the decision in SARLA VARMA (1 supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency calculated on multiplier '16' works out to Rs.9,50,400/-. The claimants are mother, wife and children of the deceased and as such, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. So, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,70,400/-. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed while appeal filed by claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.9,70,400/- (Rupees nine lakhs seventy thousand four hundred only). Wife is entitled to the compensation amount granted towards loss of consortium. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till payment. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-7-2010 bsc [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121