THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2707 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellants-claimants filed this appeal questioning the award dated 30.03.2009, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 1577 of 2007, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/- as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/- contending that the same is very meagre and needs enhancement. On 10.06.2007, at about 12.15 A.M., the deceased was returning to his house on his motor cycle, he met with an accident near mini tank bund at Safilguda, when the bus bearing No. AP 11Z 5686 coming from behind, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit him. The deceased fell down and the bus ran over him, and as a result thereof, the deceased died on the spot. Therefore, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, the appellants-claimants, who are his parents, brother and sister, filed O.P. before the Court below contending that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 25 years, he was working as Assistant Lineman in APCPDCL and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, and due to his death, they have lose his contribution to the family. The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants-claimants. Before the Court below, the appellants-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 and A12, while on behalf of the respondents, none was examined and no document was marked. The Court below having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident in which the deceased died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Court below though found that as per Ex. A10-salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.7,671/-, yet it took Rs.6,000/- per month as his salary. Even though it deducted one-third of the said salary towards personal expenses of the deceased, but while computing the loss of dependency it took only Rs.2,000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per month and taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 27 applied the multiplier 12 and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. Apart from that, the Court below awarded Rs.5,000/- each i.e. Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in all the Court below awarded Rs.3,08,000/- to the appellants-claimants and apportioned the same amongst them as mentioned in the order. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the Court below committed an error in taking the age of the mother of deceased for the purpose of applying the relevant multiplier. He further submitted that the Court below erred in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, even though the deceased was drawing Rs.9,000/- per month. He further submitted that even though deducted one-third of the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses, but while calculating the dependency, it had deducted two- thirds of his salary towards personal expenses of the deceased. He submitted that the correct salary of the deceased is taken, the correct applicable is taken and one-third of the salary of the deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses, then the appellants- claimants would be entitled to more compensation than what the Court below has granted, and hence, prayed for modification of the award accordingly. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC supported the award passed by the Court below and submitted that no interference is warranted therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC and perused the award under appeal. As is evident from Ex. A10-salary certificate, the deceased, who was working as Assistant Lineman in APCPDCL, was drawing Rs.7,671/- per month. The appellants-claimants did not examine the officer who issued Ex. A10-salary certificate. A perusal of Ex. A10- salary certificate discloses that a sum of Rs.150/- was being deducted from the salary of the deceased towards professional tax etc. After such deductions, the deceased was getting Rs.7,500/- per month. The deceased, admittedly, is a bachelor. And as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], 50% of the salary should be deducted towards personal expenses. As the deceased was drawing Rs.7,500/- per month, if 50% thereof is deducted towards his personal expenses, then his contribution to the family would be Rs.3,750/- per month i.e. Rs. 45,000/- per annum. Since the deceased is a bachelor and is not married, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for applying the relevant multiplier. As the age of the mother of the deceased was 46 years, the relevant multiplier that is applicable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma is 13. By application of the multiplier 13, the loss of dependency to the appellants-claimants due to the death of the deceased would be (Rs.45,000/- x 13) Rs. 5,85,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.5,95,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,08,000/- to Rs.5,95,000/- along with interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 20th September, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (6) SCC 121