HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A. No. 3617 of 2003 And CMA No. 461 of 2009 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, by award dated 27-06-2003 in MVOP No. 6 of 1999, both the insurance company as well as the claimants filed these appeals. 2. There is no dispute about factum of the accident in which the deceased died and about driver of the accident vehicle driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. There is also no dispute about coverage of insurance for the accident vehicle with United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The lower Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.7,380/- per month basing on Ex.A6-salary certificate of the deceased. By the date of death of the deceased, the deceased completed her Engineering course and was about to join as Lecturer in a college on the basis of Ex.A9-appointment order. It appears to be a campus selection for the deceased girl. On the basis of Exs.A9 and A6, the lower Tribunal rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs.7,380/- per month. 4. The lower Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since the deceased was an unmarried girl and since the alleged dependents are parents and younger sister, half of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. I n Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] the Supreme Court held that in the case of deceased batchelor, half of the income should be deducted towards personal expenditure, when parents are the dependents. In this case, the 1st claimant/father has been working in Electricity Department. So virtually, he is not a dependent on the deceased. The 3rd claimant/younger sister cannot be held to be a dependant on the deceased, as she is dependent on the 1st claimant, who is her father. Therefore, in all propriety, the lower Tribunal should have deducted half of notional income of the deceased towards her personal expenditure. 5. It is contended by the claimants’ counsel that as per Sarla Varma (1 supra), the multiplier for the age of 45 years is 14, but the lower Tribunal took the multiplier as 10.45 erroneously. Age of the father was 47 years and age of the mother was 43 years. Even if age of the mother is taken as criterion, the multiplier has to be selected from the age group of 41 years to 45 years, which comes to 14. If pecuniary compensation is calculated on the above basis, then it comes to Rs.6,19,920/-. The lower Tribunal did not award any amount towards non-pecuniary compensation. The claimants are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/-, loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/- and loss of estate at Rs.10,000/- . Thus, total amount comes to Rs. 6,41,920/- 6. The insurance company’s counsel contended that interest awarded at 9% p.a. is on higher side. The accident took place in the year 1998 and the claim petition was filed in the lower Tribunal in the year 1999. Having regard to bank rate of interest during the said period, interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the lower Tribunal is appropriate. 7. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of without costs altering the compensation amount payable to the claimants from Rs.6,17,000/- to Rs.6,41,920/-. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 09-12-2010 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121