HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.344 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.7 of 995 vide award dated 26-11-1998 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Tirupathi, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimants are wife and sons of the deceased Sayyad Akber, who died on 27-08-1994 due to the accident that occurred on 26-08-1994. The driver of the car bearing No.TSO – 954 involved in the accident, its owner and insurer are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as referred in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 26-08-1994, while the deceased and some others were proceeding from Renigunta to Srikalahasthi in the car bearing No.TSO – 954 being driven by respondent No.1, at 84th KM stone, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of that car, he lost control over it and dashed against the culvert, as a result, car turned turtle and on account of that deceased sustained injuries and was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Srikalahasthi and from there he was shifted to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, where he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. A case in Crime No.82 of 1994 was registered by the Srikalahasthi (U) Police Station against respondent No.1 and investigated into. The deceased was working as a Senior Goods Driver and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,300/- per month apart from other allowances. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 5. The O.P. was not pressed against respondent No.1, as he was driver of the car involved in the accident. Respondent No.2, owner of the car, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.3, insurer of the above car, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the 1st respondent drove the car rashly and negligently causing the accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking a copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- against respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally with interest at 12% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inadequate ? 12. There is no dispute about the deceased being aged 54 years as on the date of accident as seen from Ex.A-6 service certificate of the deceased. There is also no dispute about the salary of the deceased being Rs.5,917/- per month. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘5’ and took the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month since he was left with six more years of service and would get six more increments. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants - appellants contends that as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1], for the age group of the deceased, who was aged 54 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier applicable is ‘11’. 14. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that no amount can be added towards enhancement in future income in the cases of the persons aged above 50 years as per the decision referred supra itself. 15. There is no dispute that in the decision referred supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the cases of persons aged above 50 years, enhancement in future income cannot be taken. It is also not in dispute that as per the decision, for the person aged 54 years, multiplier ‘11’ has to be applied. Thus, if the age of the deceased is taken as 54 years, multiplier ‘11’ is applicable. Further, there is also no dispute about the salary of the deceased being Rs.5,917/- per month as per Ex.A-9 salary certificate. Accordingly, if 1/3rd of the amount is deducted towards his personal expenses from his monthly income of Rs.5,900/-, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.3,934/- per month and Rs.47,208/- per annum. When the annual contribution of the deceased towards his family is capitalized with multiplier ‘11’, it comes to Rs.5,19,288/- towards loss of dependency and the same can be rounded off to Rs.5,20,000/-. Another amount of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded towards loss of love and affection and consortium etc. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of around Rs.5,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. However, since the Tribunal has awarded the compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only to the claimants instead of Rs.5,50,000/- and accordingly the claimants are awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be at 12% per annum only and withdrawal of the amount to the extent awarded by the Tribunal also shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. The apportionment of the enhanced compensation between the claimants shall be in the same ratio as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are permitted to withdraw 1/4th of enhanced compensation soon after its deposit and the balance two years thereafter. 17. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121