THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1238 and 1555 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Both the appeals arise out of the same order, hence they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. C.M.A.No.1238 of 2004 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the order, dated 14.11.2003, passed in O.P.No.1557 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), wherein and whereunder a sum of Rs.5,74,055/- was awarded as compensation for the death of one Chhoteyal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road accident. C.M.A.No.1555 of 2004 is filed by the claimants in the said O.P. seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs.5,74,055/- awarded by the Tribunal as against the claim of Rs.9,50,000/-. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.01.2001, at about 8.30 pm., when the deceased was walking on National Highway No.7 near the hospital gate of National Police Academy campus, a scooter bearing No.AP-13D- 5082 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased as a result he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Hence, the claim petition by the wife and children of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-. It is mainly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal application of multiplier for awarding the compensation as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act is bad; and that the Tribunal has taken the gross salary of the deceased into consideration without making any statutory deductions from the same and hence, the award of the Tribunal has to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in not granting the compensation towards loss of estate; that more amount ought to have been granted towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by it and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the relevant material on record. As regards the occurrence of the accident, it is to be seen that P.W-2, an eye-witness to the said accident deposed in categorical terms that on the said date, when the deceased was crossing the road on National Highway No.7, the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP.13.D.5082, driving the same in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. P.W-2 was even examined by the Police and his statement was recorded. Even in Ex.A-2-charge sheet and Ex.A-3-inquest report, the name of P.W-2 was referred to. Admittedly, the National Police Academy is situated adjacent to the National Highway where the deceased was working. Merely for that reason, it cannot be said that the act of crossing the road by the deceased amounts to contributory negligence. In that view of the matter, it can be held that the said accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said scooter. While reverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is to be seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was a Government employee. His gross salary, as per Ex.A-6-salary certificate, is Rs.13,868/-. However, the Tribunal while assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency has taken the entire gross salary of the deceased into consideration, without making any statutory deductions from it. It is common knowledge that from the gross salary of a government employee certain standard deductions viz., GPF, APGLI, PT., etc shall be made. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal has missed to take note of the same. Therefore, safely a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month can be taken as the salary of the deceased, after making the standard deductions. There are four dependants on the accused i.e., his wife and three children, hence, if 1/4th of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.9,750/- per month, which works out to Rs.1,17,000/- per annum. Having regard to the age of the deceased at 57 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘9’ and by applying the same, the compensation towards the loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,53,000/-. In addition to the said sum, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,73,000/-. However, the compensation claimed by the claimants before Tribunal in the said O.P. is only for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. That apart, even during the pendency of these appeals before this Court, they did not file any petition for enhancement of the claim. In such circumstances, though the compensation payable to the claimants works out to Rs.10,73,000/-, the same is restricted to Rs.9,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.3,75,945/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1238 of 2004 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.1555 of 2004 is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 09th December 2010 dr