IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1534 of 2007 Between: Punuru Suneetha and 2 others .. Appellants AND Shaik Rahamathullah and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in MVOPNo.445 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nellore, dated 12-10-2006. P. Srinivasulu working as a Record Assistant in the Mandal Legal Services Committee at Venkatagiri at the age of 35 years was earning salary of Rs.4,278/- per month with which he was maintaining himself, his wife, minor daughter and mother. On 6-7- 2004, when he was walking on Pennar river bridge, Auto No.AP- 26-U-5176 dashed him from behind and the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle resulted in the death of Srinivasulu while undergoing treatment at Tirupathi on the next day. The dependents of Srinivasulu, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the original owner, the later owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal while the 3rd respondent claimed that he sold away the auto to S. Babu Rao in November 2003 and hence, he had no liability. The 2nd respondent-insurer put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations and denied the auto driver having any valid driving licence or there being any contract of insurance. The Tribunal framed issues about the accident occurring out of the use of the offending motor vehicle and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Ex.B.1 were marked during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award acting upon the eye-witness account of PW.3 corroborated by Ex.A.8-Charge sheet to conclude that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal referred to Basic Pay, D.A. and H.R.A. being received by the deceased and took the monthly income as Rs.3,500/- as against the salary of Rs.4,278/-. It deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, but again took the contribution at Rs.2,000/- per month, as there was less dependence. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 12 in the light of the age of the deceased and compassionate appointment provided to his wife and apart from the loss of dependency of Rs.2,88,000/-, the Tribunal considered it fit to grant Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and transport. Altogether the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,38,000/- rounded off to Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. The Tribunal gave further directions about the disbursement and apportionment of the compensation. The claimants are aggrieved by non-grant of the compensation as claimed by them and contended in this appeal that the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.4,278/- only and future revisions of pay, promotions and other service conditions also should have been taken into account. The multiplier applied should have been 17 and interest granted should have been 12%. The claimants, therefore, desired the balance compensation as claimed to be awarded. Heard Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer and the 3rd respondent is represented by a learned counsel, while the 1st respondent remained unrepresented before this Court. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the auto for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is concerned, there was no challenge from any party nor did any of the respondents to the claim challenge the joint and several liability fixed on them for payment of just and adequate compensation to the dependents of the deceased. The only question left for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of such just and adequate compensation payable by the respondents. The details of the employment of the deceased were evident from Ex.A.16-Service Register and the deceased working as Record Assistant in Mandal Legal Services Committee, Venkatagiri, was admittedly drawing a salary of Rs.4,278/-. The deductions from his salary to a tune of Rs.602/- at the relevant time do not show any significant amounts that have to be reduced from the gross salary in assessing the income for the purpose of arriving at the contribution to the family and even assuming that the deduction towards profession tax and the income received by way of House Rent Allowance have to be not considered, still a minimum of about Rs.3,900/- should have been taken as income. What was the basis for the assessment by the Tribunal of the income only at Rs.3,500/- per month in respect of the service being rendered by the deceased since 2000 is not known, more so, in the absence of any reasoning given in this regard in the impugned award. Even if such income were to be taken at Rs.3,600/- per month taking only the net salary of Rs.3,676/- into account, the Tribunal should have taken into account, in the case of the permanent employee in the statutory authority under the Government, the addition of income towards future prospects as mandated by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The deceased was aged below 40 years and had a permanent job, due to which as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% is required and if so, even if 1/3rd were to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance of Rs.2,400/- should have been enhanced by another Rs.1200/- to assess the loss of dependency at Rs.3,600/- per month. The deceased of course crossed 35 years by a month, but as the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) itself stated that different operative multiplies were applied and adopted by the Courts and Tribunals on the facts and circumstances of the respective cases, the multiplier applicable to a person of the age of 35 years at 16 can be adopted. If so, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,91,200/-. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal itself awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and transport and further upgraded the compensation by Rs.12,000/-, while rounding off the total of Rs.3,38,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-. So, the total compensation payable is a minimum of Rs.7,31,000/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.7,30,000/-. While the Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5%p.a. on the compensation, which was not shown to be deviant in any way from the then prevailing rate of interest, on the enhanced compensation, the interest can be limited to 6% p.a. as adopted by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated suapra) in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid by the insurer, which is also a custodian of public funds. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, the award dated 12-10-2006 in MVOPNo.445 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nellore, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the apportionment of the compensation shall be in the same ratio as adopted by the Tribunal, while no further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11-10-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298