THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2751 of 2006 AND M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 6348 of 2007 Common Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2006, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in M.O.P. No. 146 of 2004. M.A.C.M.A. No. 2751 of 2006, is filed by the claimants contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and needs to be enhanced, while M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, has filed M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 6348 of 2007, contending that compensation awarded is very high and needs to be reduced. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. On 20.11.2003 while one Daya Sankar was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. AP 23 1941 to his office, he met with an accident when a tipper bearing No. AP 23T 5555, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter from behind. As a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Apollo Hospital, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 04.12.2003. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the Tipper. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed M.O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- contending that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 44 years, was working as Chargeman in BHEL Telecom Department. Apart from that, he was getting Rs.8,268/- towards performance payment and Rs.6,750/- towards profit sharing, and that they have spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards his treatment. That had he been alive, he would retired as Executive Foreman. That they are dependant upon him for their sustenance. Respondent No.1-owner of the tipper remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter stating that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver. The driver of the tipper was not holding valid driving licence and that the claimants have to prove that the tipper was insured with respondent No.2. That they are not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation claimed is very excessive and exorbitant. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver and; whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A1 to A11 and Exs. X1 and X2, while the Insurance Company did not examine any witness, but marked Ex. B1. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver; So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the salary of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, worked out his annul contribution to the family at Rs. 88,000/- and by applying the multiplier 8, worked out the compensation to Rs.7,04,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the heads loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal, by reason of the judgment under appeals, awarded Rs.7,36,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 44 years, was working as Chargeman in BHEL (Telecom Department), and was drawing Rs.15,399/- per month, and apart from that, he was also getting performance payment and profit share. The deceased still had 16 years of left over service and had he been alive, he would have earned promotions and drawn higher salary, and that being so, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month and it committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month. He further submitted that since the deceased had four dependants, only one-fourth should be deducted towards his personal expenses, but the Tribunal committed an error in deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted that since the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of his death, the multiplier applicable is 15, but the Tribunal committed an error in applying 8 multiplier. Hence, he prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants be re-calculated and they be paid more compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that as is evident from Ex. A10-pay slip, the deceased was getting Rs.3,800/- per month, and that being so, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-. Hence, he prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants be reduced. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was working as Chargeman in BHEL (Telecom Department). He had a permanent employment. At the time of his death, he was drawing Rs.,15,399/- per month and was an income tax payee. Though the deceased was drawing Rs.15,339/- per month, he was paying professional tax etc. He was even contributing towards ESI, Group Insurance. There are also other statutory deductions. Considering the deductions, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month, and we find no reason to disturb the same. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 44 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], an addition of 30% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary towards future prospects if the age of the deceased is between 40 and 50 years. If 30% of his actual salary i.e. Rs.3,300/- is added to the actual salary i.e. Rs.11,000/- per month towards future prospects, his monthly salary would be Rs.14,300/-. From out of the monthly salary of Rs.14,300/-, 10% should be deducted towards income tax, and upon such deduction (Rs.14,300/- minus Rs.1,430/-), his monthly salary would be Rs. 12,870/-. The deceased, admittedly, is having four dependants. The Tribunal, admittedly, deducted one-third of the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, where the deceased has four to six dependants, one-fourth of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, if one-fourth is deducted from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses (Rs.12,870/- minus Rs. 3,217.50 ps.) his contribution to the family would be Rs.9,652.50 ps. i.e. Rs. 1,15,830/- per annum. The deceased, admittedly, was aged 44 years at the time of his death in the accident. The Tribunal, admittedly, applied the multiplier 8 for the purpose of working out the future loss of dependency. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier applicable is 14. Hence, if the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 14 (Rs.1,15,830/- x 14), the future loss of dependency would work out to Rs.16,21,620/-. Apart from the said amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the heads “loss of estate” and “loss of consortium”, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each under the said heads. The claimants are entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants in all are entitled to Rs.16,43,620/-. Accordingly, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2751 of 2006 filed by the claimants is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,36,000/- to Rs.16,43,620/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. While the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 6348 of 2007 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 21st December, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121