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.511 of 2006 Dated:11-08-2011 Between: Balijepalli Vijaya Lakshmi & another. ….Appellants. And Ghintaguntla Satyanarayana Reddy & another. ….Respondents. 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.ANo.511 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is directed against the award and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.723 of 2002 by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The claimants have filed the application under Sections 163 (A) and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- for the death of Balijepalli Amar babu, who is the son of the 1st claimant and brother of the 2nd claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.05.2002 at 5.30 P.M. while he was going on his Hero Honda motorcycle along with Vadepalli Madhu Anand on the left side of the road leading towards Karempudi to Narasaraopet. In order to sustain the claim, the claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and examined Unnamreddy Kotireddy as P.W.2 and Ch.Nageswara Rao as P.W.3 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.6 and Ex.X.1. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The lower Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- taking the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per year as per the II schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/3rd and by applying multiplier ‘15’. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.12,621/- per month and the same was established by producing the salary certificate Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1. He further pleaded that the lower Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as such they are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- as claimed by them. The respondents’ counsel, on the other hand, has pleaded that the lower Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased as the petitioners have failed to prove Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1. According to P.W.1 the deceased was working as Operator in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Kurnool and getting Rs.12,000/- per month as salary and by the time of the accident, he was aged 23 years and she got marked Ex.A.6 salary certificate. Except putting a suggestion to P.W.1 that Ex.A.6 salary certificate was fabricated for the purpose of this case, nothing was elicited with regard to the genuineness of the said document. The petitioners in order to establish Ex.A.6 has examined P.W.3 Ch.Nageswara Rao, who is said to be working as Assistant Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation in Vijayawada. He has categorically stated that he is authorized person to give evidence on behalf of the Corporation. According to him, the deceased worked as Operator till his death on 26.05.2002. His gross salary by the date of accident was Rs.12,621/- and Ex.X.1 is the salary particulars issued by Senior Manager P.K.Mallik. In the cross- examination he has stated that he know what are the salary particulars of the employee and issuance of the certificate. He knows what is the gross salary and net salary. He admitted that the monthly salary paid to the deceased at Rs.7,640/- per month and the other deductions were shown in Ex.A.6. In the cross- examination of P.W.3 nothing was elicited by the respondents to show his authority to speak about Ex.A.6 or Ex.X.1. and no suggestion was put to him that Ex.X.1 and Ex.A.6 are fabricated documents for the purpose of this case. The lower Tribunal has not accepted the Ex.X.1 or Ex.A.6 stating that P.W.3 has not produced any authorization from his corporation and did not produce any register in support of the particulars mentioned in the salary certificate Ex.A.6 and he has not produced the service register or any connected document to prove the employment of the deceased. When P.W.3 has categorically stated that he is authorized to give evidence and he has produced Ex.X.1 and identified Ex.A.6 as issued by their corporation and nothing was suggested to him with regard to his authority to give evidence or not questioned about the employment of the deceased in their corporation, the lower Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1 produced by the petitioners. Ex.X.1 is the salary certificate issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 15.07.2005 showing the details of the gross salary at Rs.12,621/- and Ex.A.6 is the computerized salary slip for the months of February 2002 and May 2002. The accident took place on 26.05.2002, as such the salary particulars of the deceased for the month of May, 2002 can be taken into consideration. As per the said salary slip for the month of May 2002, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.12,231.96 Ps and after deductions of Rs.4,589.14 Ps, his net salary is Rs.7,640/-. Since only income tax and professional tax are liable to be deducted from the gross salary and as the petitioner drawing Rs.12,231/- per month and the income tax and professional tax is only Rs.502/-, the monthly salary of the deceased comes to Rs.11,729/-. Since the deceased is a bachelor, dependency of the petitioners can be taken only half of the salary of the deceased. Thus, the contribution should have made by the deceased to the petitioners is at Rs.5,864.50 Ps per month and it comes to Rs.70,374/- per year. Since the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are the mother and sister, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the multiplier. Since the age of the mother is 46 years, as per the decision in “Smt Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, the multiplier applicable for the age group of 46 to 50 years is ‘13’. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,14,862/- (Rs.70,374 X 13). The lower tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. As per the decision Sarla Verms and others (referred above), the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,24,862/- , which is rounded to Rs.9,25,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.9,25,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled for interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:11-08-2011 Ksp