THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.138 of 2008 DATED: 22-12-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree and order in O.P.No.1111 of 2003, dated 13-02-2006, passed by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.1111 of 2003, with which the crime vehicle involved in the accident was insured. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the mother of the deceased-G.Ashok. On 26-10-2002, the deceased and his friend-Ravi were proceeding on a Hero Honda bearing No.AP 23-D-7314 and when they reached near Langer House cross roads, the van bearing No.AP.25-T-5574 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Osmania hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment he died. The deceased was working as a Peon in Khadi Hand Village Industries Commission, Nampally, Hyderabad and earning monthly salary of Rs.5178/-. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. 1st respondent remained ex parte. 2nd respondent resisted the claim of the claimants, mainly contending that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. He also disputed the income of the deceased. 5. On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1-insurance policy was marked. 6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the van and that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company and that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs.5100/- and therefore by applying the multiplier of ‘16’, held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.61,200/- (Rs.5100 X 16). Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed this appeal. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the gross salary of the deceased for determining the income of the deceased. It is also his submission that the multiplier of ‘16’ was applied though the apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] has determined the multiplier of ‘15’. He has also relied on a judgment of the apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. v. ASHA RANI[2] in support of his contention that the net salary should be taken into consideration while computing the loss of dependency of the claimants. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier and assessed the income of the deceased and there is no need to disturb the same. 9. The apex Court has laid guidelines in Sarla Verma’s case. The apex Court held that an addition of 50% of actual salaried income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, should be made. It also held that the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. In this case, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of his death. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the actual salaried income of the deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal committed an error in not adding 50% of the actual salary towards future prospects of the deceased. Unfortunately, the claimants have not filed any cross appeal. Therefore, no addition can be made to the income of the deceased in the appeal filed by the insurance company. In view of the same, the income taken by the Tribunal cannot be considered as incorrect. Similarly, though the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier of ‘15’ as per Sarla Verma’s case, but in view of the above fact that the Tribunal failed to add 50% of the income towards future prospects, I am of the view that there is no need to disturb the calculations made by the Tribunal at this stage. There are no merits in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J 22nd December, 2010 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2003 ACJ 1 (SC)