IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1390 of 2006 Between: Siriveni Sharmila and 3 others .. Appellants AND Adduri Pentaiah and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 20-01-2005. Siriveni Yellaiah @ Mallesh, Rajesu and Kishan were going on scooter AP-15-E-5224 on 09-01-1999 and near Banda Lingapur outskirts at Gandi Hanuman temple on National High Way-16 at about 3.45 P.M., tanker No.AP-31-V-3379, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, came opposite and dashed the scooter. Siriveni Yellaiah died on the spot and Ibrahimpatnam police registered Crime No.3 of 1999 against the tanker driver and charge sheeted him in C.C.No.86 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli. Yellaiah working as Mazdoor in AGE E/M, R & D Office, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, was earning Rs.3,630/- per month at the age of 35 years. He would have had prospects in career and retirement benefits had he been alive and his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the tanker. While the owner and driver of the tanker remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and contesting the compensation claimed as excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.2, the other rider on the scooter, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker. The Tribunal also concluded from Ex.B.1- copy of the insurance policy and other documents that the 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was claimed to be earning Rs.3,630/- per month as salary as certified in Ex.A.4 and as spoken to by PWs.1 and 3, the net salary being Rs.2,804/- with an annual increment of Rs.70/-. The Tribunal, however, did not take into account Ex.A.4 treating it to have not been proved and assessed the income at Rs.2,500/- per month and the annual income at Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd out of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and taking his age as 35 years as stated in the Post Mortem report, applied a multiplier of 14. The loss of dependency of Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium were awarded against the respondents with interest at 9% p.a. The Tribunal also gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the entire claim of Rs.5,00,000/- could have been accepted taking the salary of Rs.3,630/- and by awarding more compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc. The claimants also desired the interest to be awarded at 12% p.a. and the award to be modified accordingly. Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, are heard and respondents 1 and 2 remained unrepresented before this Court. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the tanker driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is concerned, the same has become final in the absence of any challenge. The 1st respondent being the driver of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent being the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle as found by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The liability of the respondents jointly and severally to justly and adequately compensate the claimants, therefore, cannot be questioned and it is only the quantum of compensation that needs a reassessment in this appeal. The age of the deceased was taken as 35 years as per Ex.A.3-Post Mortem certificate in the absence of any other evidence and the assessment by the medical expert could have been taken as a safe guide under such circumstances. For the person aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and therefore, the loss of dependency should be calculated by applying such a multiplier. Insofar as the income is concerned, it is true that Ex.A.4- Salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased was placed before the Tribunal and though the officer, who issued Ex.A.4, was not examined, PW.3, who identified the signature of the officer, worked in the office of the employer at the relevant time as an Upper Division Clerk and he spoke about his personal knowledge of the maintenance of the Service Registers of the deceased about the date of birth, the salary and the deductions etc. The Tribunal can only be said to have been too technical in refusing to act on Ex.A.4 as such. Therefore, while Ex.A.4 should have formed a reasonable basis for assessing the probable income of the deceased, it is true that out of the deductions of Rs.826/- most of them relate to the savings effected by the deceased, but still taking into account the inevitable imponderables in life, it will be reasonable and just to take the net salary as the basis for assessing the compensation. If such net salary is to be rounded off to Rs.2,800/- and a multiplier of 16 were to be adopted, while the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of the assessed income as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra), the total loss of dependency will come to Rs.4,03,200/-. In addition, as directed in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) the claimants will be entitled to loss of estate and loss of consortium and funeral expenses totalling to Rs.20,000/- and the total compensation can be rounded off to Rs.4,23,000/- requiring an enhancement of Rs.1,13,000/-. While the interest granted at 9% p.a. originally by the Tribunal was not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest, the interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation can be restricted to 6% p.a. in view of the length of time for which the insurer has to pay such interest and the insurer also being a custodian of public funds. Therefore, the award dated 20-01-2005 in O.P.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the enhanced compensation shall also be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned. No directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298