THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.1332 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) The M.A.C.M.A was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 4.11.2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. After disposal of the appeals and before typing of the judgment, the counsel for the claimants prayed the Court to list the matter “For Being Mentioned” on the ground that the deceased at the time of his death was aged 36 years and as was holding a permanent job, and as such, 50% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased should be added towards future prospects, and if such addition is made, the Court instead of reducing the compensation, would enhance the compensation. Hence, today the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2007 in O.P No.2591 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimants are respondents 1 to 3 herein, who filed O.P before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Smt. P. Madhubala (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) in the motor vehicle accident. The 1st claimant is the husband, claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. On 22.10.2004, the deceased along with her family members was returning to Yelamanchili in a taxi bearing No.AP 31 T 3952, while on their way near P.S. Rayavaram, a lorry bearing No.AP 16W 3289 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the taxi, as a result of which, the deceased suffered fatal injuries and she died while undergoing treatment. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased at the time of her death in the accident, was a permanent employee in Central Bank of India. She was earning Rs.14,255/- per month. Considering her age at 36, she had good prospects of getting increments and promotions in her career. The Insurance Company filed counter contending that there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The taxi in which the deceased and his family members were travelling, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules, and that he had no driving licence. Before the Tribunal, during the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked, while on behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded an amount of Rs.19,83,138/- towards compensation to the claimants under the heads of “loss of dependency”, “loss of consortium” to the husband and “funeral expenses”. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company contended that as per Ex.A6-salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.14,255/- p.m., and net salary is Rs.10,652/-p.m. Hence, the Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- p.m., for the purpose of computing the compensation. Therefore, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, by the award under appeal, is not just and proper and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the claimants while opposing the contentions raised by the Insurance company contended that the claimants are entitled to more compensation than what has been granted. At any rate, he contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants by the award under appeal, being just, does not call for interference by this Court. Heard the Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the Counsel for the respondents-claimants. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident. At the time of her death in the accident, the deceased had permanent employment. She was working as a Clerk-cum-Typist in Central Bank of India. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly contended that for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to the claimants, the net salary of the deceased has to be taken. In the instant case, the Tribunal neither took the net salary nor the gross salary of the deceased, and instead it committed an error in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation. The deceased at the time of her death in the accident was working as Clerk-cum-typist in Central Bank of India. Her employment was permanent. She was getting gross salary of Rs.14,255/- and after deductions, she was getting net salary of Rs. 10,672/-. The deductions, include, festival advance of Rs.800/-, professional tax Rs.100/-, contribution to the union Rs.90/- and recreation Rs.5/-. The said amount, which comes to Rs.995/-, have to be deducted from the salary of the deceased. On such deduction, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,250/- per month i.e., Rs.1,59,000/- per annum. The deceased at the time of her death was aged 36 years. She had permanent employment and still had 24 years of left over service. Had she been alive, she would have earned increments and promotions in her service career and would have got higher salary. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the deceased had permanent employment and was aged below 40 years, 50% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of her death, 50% of the actual should be added to the actual salary of the deceased. On such addition, (Rs.13,255/- + Rs.6,627.50 ps.,) the salary of the deceased would come to Rs.19,882.50 ps., i.e., Rs.2,38,590/- per annum. The deceased, admittedly is having three children. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, one-third of the income should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.2,38,590/- one-third therefrom should be deducted towards his personala expenses. On deduction of Rs.79,530/-, which is one-third of Rs.2,38,590/-, the contribution of the deceased to her family would come to Rs.1,59,060/- per annum. The deceased, at the time of her death in the accident, was aged 36 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the relevant multiplier applicable to a person aged 36 years is 15. If the annual loss of dependency i.e., Rs.1,59,060/- is multiplied by 15 (Rs.1,59,060/- x 15), the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.23,85,900/-. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.23,85,990/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from the said amounts, the respondents-claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and while respondent No.1 is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the respondents-claimants are entitled to Rs.24,05,900/-. Even though the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,05,900/-, which is more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal, but since they did not prefer any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, they are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation in this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. Subject to the above modification, the present appeal is partly allowed. No costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 4.11.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD MACMA No.1332 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Dated:4.11.2011 Nn [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121