THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.82 of 2008 and 1168 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in O.P.No.2078 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 24.02.2007. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2008 are the claimants. The appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1168 of 2008 is the Insurance Company. The appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2008 have filed the application before Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of husband of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of petitioner Nos.4 and 5, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.05.2005 near Shahpur check post. According to the petitioners/claimants on that day the deceased was traveling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 36V 9563 belongs to the 1st respondent and the driver of the said Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a lorry going ahead of it. As a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- stating that the deceased was working as Medical Officer in Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Mallampally and received salary of Rs.12,658/- and he has got 23 years more service. The owner of the Tata Sumo has filed a counter pleading that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo. The Insurance Company opposed the said claim by filing counter contending that the Tata Sumo driver was not having valid driving license and the conditions of the policy were violated and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 21.05.2005 at about 1.30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Spacio (Sumo) bearing No.AP 36V 9563 by its driver causing death of the deceased? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation? And if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.13. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy and Exs.X.1 to X.5 marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. taking into consideration monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.14,557/- and after deducting Rs.100/- towards profession tax, 25% towards income tax arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,43,484/-, which comes to Rs.11,957/- per month. The Tribunal taking into consideration that the deceased is having 23 years of remaining service and his promotional aspects fixed the salary at Rs.14,000/- and arrived his annual income at Rs.1,68,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.1,12,000/-. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased as ‘36’ years, applied multiplier ‘16’ and awarded total loss of dependency of Rs.17,92,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the petitioners are also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total the petitioners are awarded Rs.18,19,000/- towards compensation. The claimants’ counsel has pleaded that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the net salary of the deceased and proper multiplier has not been applied and future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, the claimants are entitled for more than Rs.25,00,000/-. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it is pleaded that the multiplier is on higher side and the necessary deductions are not made from the salary of the deceased and pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. There is no dispute that the deceased was working as Medical Officer in Government Ayurvedic Dispensary in Mallampally as on the date of his death. As per Ex.X.5, the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.14,557/- per month. Only an amount of Rs.100/- towards profession tax has to be excluded from the gross salary, which comes to Rs.14,457/- per month and Rs.1,73,484/- per annum. Out of the said amount, income tax has to be deducted; Rs.1,00,000/- is exempted from the income and on the balance amount of Rs.73,484/-, 25% (Rs.18,371/-) has to be deducted towards income tax. After deducting the said income tax, the annual income (Rs.1,73,484-Rs.18,371) of the deceased comes to Rs.1,55,113/-. Since the dependents on the deceased are five members, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” only 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,16,335/- (Rs.1,55,113-Rs.38,778). Since the deceased is aged 36 years as on the date of his death and he is Government employee, as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) 50% has to be taken into consideration towards his future prospects and the same has to be added. Thus, the annual dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.1,74,502/- (Rs.1,16,335+Rs.58,167). As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s Case (referred supra) the proper multiplier applicable for the age of ‘36’ years is ‘15’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.1,74,502 X 15 = Rs.26,17,530/-. Apart from the said amount, the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled to Rs.26,44,530/-. Since the claimants are claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, the entitlement of petitioners is restricted to Rs.25,00,000/- As per the decision rendered in Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the interest payable to the petitioners on the compensation is only 6%. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.82 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,00,000/- from Rs.18,19,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The M.A.C.M.A.No.1168 of 2008 is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest on the awarded amount from 7.5% to 6% P.A. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:20-09-2011 Ksp