THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1046 of 2003 Date: 12.8.2010 Between: Sri Battula Mukunda Rao and others. … Appellants and Sri N.Pydikonda and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1046 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 17.10.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2001, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.6,50,000/- made by the appellants-claimants, being the parents of the deceased Battula Madhusudhanarao, who died in a road accident that occurred on 17.3.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.AP 31U 2583, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimants in the O.P. 3. This is a case of death in a road accident. The other particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident had occurred and also the aspect of negligence are not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in all towards compensation. Hence the present appeal. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 5. It is to be seen that the deceased was a young man of 23 years old, working as A.R. Constable. Though Ex.X-1 salary certificate was marked showing the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,462/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,646/-. Consequently, after assessing the annual contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.20,000/-, by taking into consideration the age of the parents as 45 years, and after applying the multiplier ‘12’, the Tribunal had arrived at a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards the future loss of earnings. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate of the deceased. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded towards compensation to the claimants. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal had committed three errors; firstly, in taking into account the net salary of the deceased instead of gross salary; secondly, in applying the multiplier ‘12’ instead of applying the multiplier ‘15’; and thirdly, in deducting 50% of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 7. Regarding the first contention of the learned counsel for the claimants, it is settled law that only the net salary is to be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of the annual income, because the other allowances are not definite. In view of the settled legal proposition, I am to hold that the first objection raised by the learned counsel cannot be sustained. 8. So far as the second objection with regard to application of the multiplier ‘12’ instead of applying ‘15’, it is to be seen that as per the decision rendered by the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1] for a person of aged 40 years, in the present case the age of the mother is 40 years, the multiplier ‘15’ is to be applied. 9. So far as the third contention as regards the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-insurer submitted that as per the judgment in SARLA VERMA’s case referred to supra, the apex Court held that in case of an unmarried bachelor, 50% should be deducted towards personal expenses. 10. A perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the deductions may vary from the facts and circumstances of the case. In some cases 1/3rd has to be deducted and in some cases 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses in case of a bachelor. That practice was evolved only out of experience, logic and convenience. But, at the same time, the apex Court also taken note of the fact that 1/3rd deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, I prefer to deduct only 1/3rd from the net salary of the deceased towards personal expenses. In such a case, when the annual income of the deceased was estimated at Rs.43,752/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would come to Rs.29,168/-. If the multiplier ‘15’ is applied, the amount towards loss of future earnings would come to Rs.4,37,520/-. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,52,520/- (Rs.4,37,520/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses). 11. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the total amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.4,52,520/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty two thousand five hundred and twenty only). The additional amount of Rs.2,02,520/- (Rupees two lakhs two thousand five hundred and twenty only) shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal, till realization. In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12.08.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1046 of 2003 12.08.2010 (Msr) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121