THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.606 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation in the Award in O.P.No.158 of 1998, dated 05-10-2001 on the file of the District Judge (MACT), Medak at Sanga Reddy. The first claimant is the wife of Ch.Manaiah (deceased) and the claimants 2 and 3 are his children and Respondents 3 and 4 are his parents. On 04-07-1997, while the deceased was proceeding on a scooter, a Jeep bearing registration No.AP 23-B-4236 hit the scooter from behind, as a result of which, Manaiah died. The deceased was said to be aged 28 years working in a factory and the claimants are his dependents. Initially, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. Subsequently, they have filed I.A.No.333 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- and the said I.A. was allowed by orders dated 05-08-1999. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters and contested the claim. The claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 to P.W.4 and filed Exs.A1 to A6. The respondents while filing Ex.B1 Insurance Policy did not examine any witness on their behalf. The Tribunal by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, applying multiplier 13.83, awarded Rs.3,32,920/- towards pecuniary damages, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, thus awarded Rs.3,46,920/- (should be 3,47,920/-). Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal is not correct in computing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. He would contend that the Tribunal did not take Ex.A5 Salary Certificate and the evidence of P.W.2 into consideration. On a true and correct appreciation of the said evidence, the claimants would be entitled for the total amount of Rs.5,75,000/- as claimed by them. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent, Insurance Company, would contend that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and is not liable to be interfered with. Since this appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement, issues relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into. Therefore, the only point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, to what amount. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. In her evidence she deposed that her husband was an employee in a private company viz., ITW Signode India Limited. He was a Machine Operator and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. She further deposed that the family had no other source of income except the earnings of her husband and that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Through her, Exs.A1 to A6 documents were marked. Ex.A5 document is the salary certificate and Ex.A6 is the bona fide certificate issued by the Head Master of Zilla Praja Parishad High school, Muttangi, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. In her cross-examination at the instance of the respondents 1 and 2, she reiterated that her husband was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and denied the suggestion that Ex.A5 was prepared for the purpose of the case to get more compensation. P.W.2 was working as Senior Executive Manager in ITW, Signode India Limited, Rudraram. He deposed that the deceased was working in the factory as a Mill Operator from 1991 to 1997 till his death. He confirmed that he issued Ex.A5 salary certificate. He stated that the deceased died at the age of 30 years. In his cross-examination he deposed that the factory is a multi-national factory and he denied the suggestion that he issued the salary certificate to help the claimants. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that he witnessed the accident. It may be noted that his evidence is not relevant for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation. P.W.4 is the father of the deceased. In his deposition he stated that his son was working in the company and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A5 shows that the deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs.5,663.20 ps., which included the basic salary of Rs.1,804/-, FDA Rs.1,642.20ps. and other allowances Rs.2,217.00. The deductions shown are P.F. of Rs.414/-, P.Tax of Rs.60/- and CSI of Rs.97/-, a total of Rs.571/-, thus the net salary was shown as Rs.5,092.20ps. The evidence as reflected in Ex.A5, supported by the evidence of P.W.2, was not impeached by the respondents 1 and 2 by adducing any evidence on their behalf. As noted above, except filing Ex.B1 Insurance Policy, the respondents did not examine any witness, nor produced any other evidence. The Tribunal instead of relying on Ex.A5, on the pretext of the average, fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4, which is consistent, Ex.A5 salary certificate cannot be discarded. The net income of the deceased is therefore fixed as Rs.5,092.20. After deducing 1/3rd from out of it towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the pecuniary loss would be Rs.3,394.80ps. per month and Rs.40,737.60 per annum. The Tribunal based on Ex.A6 held that the age of the deceased was 32 at the time of accident. Taking the same into consideration and also the multiplier 13.83 as applied by the Tribunal, the total pecuniary loss would be Rs.5,63,401/- (40,737.60 x 13.83 = 5,63,401). It is therefore to be held that the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,63,401/- towards pecuniary loss as against Rs.3,32,920/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium in favour of the first claimant and the same need not be interfered with. Thus, the total compensation payable would come to Rs.5,78,401/-. However, the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs.5,75,000/- only. It is therefore to be held that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-. Thus a sum of Rs.2,28,080/- is granted towards enhancement in this appeal. The Award in O.P.No.158 of 1998 is modified and the appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th July, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.606 of 2003 Date : 15-07-2010 Between : Smt.Chakali Vijayalaxmi and 2 Others .. Appellants And General Manager, United India Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Sangareddy, Medak District and 3 Others. .. Respondents