HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2369 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the order in M.O.P.No.1349 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The application was filed for a compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Ramabadra Raju. According to the case of the petitioner, on 20.05.2002 when he was going on a scooter bearing No.AP 31 J 8506 and reached near NAD Kotha road, Visakhapatnam, the lorry bearing No.AP 31 U 2377 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, as a result of which, he died. The 1st petitioner is wife, petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and petitioners Nos.4 and 5 are parents of the decased. The deceased was aged about 38 years and said to be earning Rs.11,000/- per month as a Technician Mechanic in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The 1st respondent is owner, and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition, putting the petitioners to strict proof rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and cause of death of the deceased. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.10,55,072/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 4. POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and also so far as the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is not of much dispute and the Insurance Company also did not dispute the liability. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that as per the pay slip and the evidence of PW.3, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.12,791.76 ps. But the lower Tribunal has wrongly deducted the salary and the earning capacity was only fixed at Rs.7,774/-, which is not proper. Evidently, the Tribunal has considered the other contributions deducted by the employer from the salary. It is fairly well settled that not all the contribution have to be deducted from the salry and it is only the statutory deductions like income tax, profession tax etc., that are to be deducted. In this connection it is useful to refer to the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Indira Srivastava[1], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the decision relied on by the lower Tribunal i s per incurium. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact and also statutory deductions like taxes and the total salary of the deceased being Rs.12,791.76 ps., I feel the salary of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month and as there are more dependants 1/4th has to be taken into consideration towards personal expenditure and after deducting the 1/4t h from Rs.10,000/-, the total contribution to the family comes to Rs.7,500/- per month and annual contribution comes to Rs.90,000/-. The deceased was said to be aged about 38 years and by keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2], the multiplier that has to be applied is ‘15’. The total dependency, therefore, comes to Rs.13,50,000/-. The petitioners will be entitled to non-pecuniary damages and also the loss of consortium for the 1st petitioner to a tune of Rs.20,000/-. The total compensation comes to Rs.13,70,000/-. Keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, the interest that can be granted is only at 6% in view of the quantum of compensation. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:20.10.2011 INL , [1] AIR 2008 SC 845 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298