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.1978 of 2007 Dated:15-12-2011 Between: Gunda Sakkubai ….Appellant. And K.R.S.Giri and another. ….Respondent. 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.A.No.1978 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed at the instance of the claimant directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.908 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda on 08.09.2006. The appellant is the claimant and she has filed the application for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of her son G.Venkanna in a Motor vehicle accident. According to her on 31.07.1999 at about 1.40 hours the deceased along with others went to Hi-Tech City for birthday function of his friend by name Shashikumar in a Maruthi Zen car bearing No.AP 9AC 923 and after attending the function while they were returning back, their car dashed the electric pole at Road No.3 at Green Mosque, Banjara Hills, due to which flames came out of the car and the driver of the car and other friends died on the spot. The deceased received severe injuries, immediately he was shifted t o Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated for injuries and succumbed to injuries on 21.08.1999. The said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The deceased was working as Senior Software Engineer in Satyam Enterprises and used to earn Rs.2,25,000/- per annum and contributing the same for the maintenance of the petitioner. Hence she is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte. The 2nd respondent has filed the counter denying the allegations made in the petition and put the petitioner to strict proof with regard to the death, age and income of the deceased and also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petitioner. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased viz., Gunda Venkanna died in the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruthi Zen AP 9AC 923? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what quantum? Against whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.AP 9AC 923. With regard to issue No.2 Tribunal by taking into consideration of Ex.A.4 salary certificate arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by considering the age of the petitioner, applied the multiplier ‘8.25’, arrived at Rs.4,95,000/- towards loss of dependency and also awarded another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-. Aggrieved by the said awarding of compensation the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the deceased was working as Senior Software Engineer in Satyam Enterprises and his annual income is Rs.2,25,000/-, but the Tribunal has erred in taking only basic pay after deducting other allowances, if all the allowances are taken into consideration, the claimant is entitled for Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed by her. The standing counsel for the insurance company on the other hand has pleaded that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration of the annual income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- and justified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1. She has stated about the employment of the deceased and also his earnings. She also examined P.W.2, who is the Deputy Manager of H.R.D. of Satyam Computers Limited, Hyderabad. According to him, the deceased worked as Senior Software Engineer in Oracle Circle of Satyam Computers Private Limited from 05.04.1999 to 31.07.1999. During the said period, his gross salary was Rs.2,25,000/- per annum. Ex.A.4 is the appointment letter and salary particulars including Annexure A, B and C issued by their office by the then Assistant Vice President of their Department. Thus, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.2,25,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A.4, the basic pay, per annum was mentioned as Rs.90,000/-, HRA was mentioned as Rs.36,000/- , transport allowance was mentioned as Rs.9,600/- including special allowance, educational allowance and other allowances including L.T.A., medical reimbursement. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of basic pay of Rs.90,000/- P.A. holding that HRA, LTA, Medical reimbursement cannot be taken into consideration. The salary includes HRA, which is beneficial to the claimant, as such the basic pay and HRA has to be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation. If the same are taken into consideration, the annual salary of the deceased comes (Rs.90,000 + Rs.36,000) to Rs.1,26,000/-. Since the deceased is un-married at the time of his death, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs.63,000/-. Since the mother of the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of his death, as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s Case (referred supra) the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs.63,000 X 13 = Rs.8,19,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and other non-pecuniary damages, we do not want to interfere with the said awarding of Rs.l5,000/- towards loss of estate and other pecuniary damages. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.8,34,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,34,000/- from Rs.5,10,000/- 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:15 -12-2011 Ksp