THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2794 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants against the decree and order, dated 17.07.2000, passed by the II Member Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1390 of 1996. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: The claimants are the dependants of the deceased M.Narsaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.05.1996 at about 7.30 a.m. while he was proceeding on Luna bearing No.AP 10C 9417 to his office DMRL(Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory), lorry bearing No. OR 02E 2209 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Luna. The accident took place on the ring road near Hanuman Temple, Champapet, Hyderabad. The deceased received grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Medwin Hospital and he died on the same day. He was earning a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The insurance company filed counter denying the allegations in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident resulting in the death of M.Narsaiah was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.OR-02E-2209 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 policy was marked. 4. After considering the entire material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.2,02,270/- towards loss of earnings. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. The compensation awarded under other heads need not be disturbed. The question is whether the compensation awarded towards loss of earnings by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1613/- per month and applying multiplier 10.45 is appropriate. 7. The deceased was getting salary of Rs.2,419/- as per Ex.A7 on the date of accident. He was working at DMRL, a Central Government undertaking. As such, towards possibility of enhancement of future earnings, another 25% can be added to his income. After that, towards personal expenses of the deceased 25% can be deducted, as the dependants are more than 4. Thus, the net contribution comes to Rs.2,265/- per month. Annually, it comes to Rs.27,180/-. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘15’ as per the schedule, in which event, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,07,700/- towards loss of dependency to which the other amounts awarded by the court below under other heads have to be added. Thus the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,25,700/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.4,26,000/-. Thus, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,26,000/- instead of Rs.2,20,270/- granted by the Court below. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The apportionment of the amount and withdrawal shall be as ordered by the Court below. 8. C.M.A. is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 5th July 2010, Rns