IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.1975 of 2006 Dated:29-08-2011 Between: Sanampalli Nagamalla Reddy and another. ….Appellants. And B.V.B.M.Prasad and another. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.1975 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed at the instance of claimants directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – Principal District Judge, Kadapa on 17.05.2006. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased Sanampalli Prathap, who died in a motor vehicle accident, filed the present application for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. According to the petitioners, the deceased is a B.Tech. graduate and while he was studying M.Tech., he got appointment as Assistant Engineer in the Office of Divisional Engineer, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam and drawing monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. On 15.09.2003 the deceased along with his colleague went to Yuvaraj theatre at Vijayawada and after viewing picture, they were returning to quarters on their Hero- Honda motor cycle CBZ bearing No.AP 26F 6895 and when they reached CMC office, a tipper bearing number AIK 8889 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot as the tipper ran over the deceased. The Insurance Company has filed the counter denying the averments made in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place and the earnings and dependency of the petitioners on the deceased. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased Sanampalli Pratap died in motor vehicle accident on 16.09.2003 due to rash or negligent driving of tipper bearing Reg.No.AIK 8889 belonging to 1st respondent by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? The 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. No oral and documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper bearing No.AIK 8889. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,85,740/-, out of which an amount of Rs.8,70,740/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and transport charges and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for appellants has pleaded that the Tribunal erred in taking into consideration of 1/3rd income of the deceased towards contribution to the family instead of taking 2/3rd income and did not consider the future prospects of the deceased, as such the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The gross salary of the deceased as per Ex.A.7 salary certificate is Rs.16,179/- and he was paying Rs.100/- per month towards profession tax and 30% towards income tax, but the lower Court has taken into consideration the entire gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation payable to the petitioners. By taking into consideration of the gross salary of Rs.16,179/-, the annual salary of the deceased comes Rs.1,94,148/-. Since the deceased was working as Assistant Engineer, APZENCO, which is a permanent employment, some amount has to be awarded towards his future prospects. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, 50% of the total salary has to be added towards his future prospects in employment, which comes to Rs.97,074/-. Thus, the total income of the deceased including future prospects comes to Rs.2,91,222/- . Out of which, 30% has to be deducted towards income tax, which comes to Rs.87,366/- and profession tax of Rs.1,200/- has also to be deducted. After deducting income tax and profession tax, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,02,656/- (Rs.2,91,222 – Rs.87,366 – Rs.1,200 = Rs.2,02,656/-). Since the deceased is unmarried, the loss of dependency of the petitioners can be taken as only 50% of the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.1,01,328/-. Since the mother of the deceased is aged about 42 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) is ‘14’. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,01,328 X 14 = Rs.14,18,592/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, and transportation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, we do not want to interfere with the same. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,33,592/- (Rs.14,18,592 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.1,00,000) with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,33,592/- from Rs.9,85,740/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:29-08-2011 Ksp