THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2774 of 2003 and 965 of 2004 Dated 23rd September, 2010 CMA.No.2744 of 2003 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, S.Kota Depot, Vizianagaram District and another. …Appellants And Sarita Devi Dujari and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : ----- Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Jayanti S.C.Sekhar Counsel for respondent No.3: --- CMA.No.965 of 2004 Between: Saritha Devi Dujari and another. …Appellants And Animireddi Ramakrishna and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.Jayanti S.C.Sekhar Counsel for the respondents: ----- The Court made the following: Common Judgment: These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of common award, dated 24-04-2003, in O.P.No.649 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Court, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’). While CMA.No.2774 of 2003 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation), i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the above- mentioned OP, CMA.No.965 of 2004 is filed by the claimants therein. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the OP. At the hearing, there has been no representation for the respondents on 16-09-2010 and also today. I have heard Sri Jayanti C.Sekhar, learned Counsel for the claimants. The claimants are the parents of one Rahul Kumar Dujari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in a road accident on 21-05-2001, when the scooter, he was riding, was hit by the bus belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The claimants filed the OP claiming a total compensation of Rs.12 lakhs. The Tribunal, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is the driver of the Corporation. The Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.A.12- salary certificate of the deceased, took into account the income of the deceased at the time of the accident @ Rs.3,500/- per month and added Rs.1,000/- to it towards future prospects and as the deceased was a bachelor, it adopted the multiplier of 15 by taking into consideration the age of his mother i.e., the first claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15, 000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has, in all, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- as against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs made by the claimants. While respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed CMA.No.2774 of 2003, questioning the award of compensation, the claimants have filed CMA.No.965 of 2004 feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the claimants has advanced two contentions viz., (1) that even if the Tribunal was justified in taking Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident, it has failed to properly take into consideration the future prospects as per the law laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court which were reviewed in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and; (2) that the Tribunal has committed an error in not adopting the multiplier of 16, as the age of claimant No.1, who is the mother of the deceased, was 40 years at the time of the accident. I have carefully considered the above-submissions of the learned Counsel for the claimants. In Sarla Verma (1 supra), the Supreme Court has considered its earlier judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas[2], Sarala Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav[3] and Albati Bezbaruah vs. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India[4], and standardised the percentage of income to be adopted towards future prospects while assessing the income of the deceased. It has held that where the deceased had a permanent job, in addition to his actual salary drawn at the time of the accident, 50% of the salary drawn by him at the time of his death should be added, if he was aged below 40 years, and 30% should be added, if he was aged between 40 and 50 years. The Supreme Court further held that where the age of the deceased was more than 50 years, there should be no addition at all. In the instant case, as found by the Tribunal, the deceased has worked as a Center Officer in Digital Services Private Limited, Kolkata, from 26-12-2000 to 11- 04-2001 and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. The Tribunal also held that the deceased was holding a first class B.Com Degree Certificate and has appeared for common admission test into P.G.Diploma in Business Administration held in the month of December, 2000, and got a seat to study the said diploma course at ITM Warangal, for the academic year 2001-03. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was a bright boy and that the students of ITM will get placements in reputed companies like Tata group etc. In the light of the above-findings of the Tribunal, and having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court i n Sarla Verma (1 supra), the Tribunal ought to have added 50% to the income drawn by the deceased at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased for assessment of compensation as Rs.5,250/- instead of Rs.4,500/- per month. With regard to the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the claimants regarding the multiplier, as the deceased was a bachelor, the age of his mother at the time of the accident should be considered. As her age was 40 years, the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma (1 supra) should be 16 but not 15, adopted by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal requires to be modified in this regard also. In the result, CMA.No.2774 of 2003 is dismissed and CMA.No.965 of 2004 is partly allowed, by directing that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.5,250/- per month and 1/3rd thereof should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, a multiplier of 16 should be adopted in place of 15. The Tribunal shall, accordingly, re-compute the compensation awarded to the claimants in terms of this judgment. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the claim petition. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd September, 2010 lur [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) [2] 1994 (2) SCC 176 [3] 1996 (3) SCC 179 = 1996 (2) ALD (SCSN) 39 [4] 2003 (3) SCC 148