THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2306 of 2003 Date:23.09.2010 Between: Smt. Bogathi Nagalakshmi and others ..... Appellants AND The Director, Siddaganga Oil Extractions Limited, Karnataka and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. D. Seshasayana Reddy for Mr. G. Ramamohan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. N. Parameshwar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award dated 30.04.2002 in O.P.No.479 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge’s Court, Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased B.Venkatarami Reddy, who died in a motor accident involving an oil tanker bearing registration No.KA 06 4714 belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. On finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,872/- towards compensation under various heads as against the total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the appellants. Partly aggrieved by the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. At the hearing Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants advanced three contentions: - (i) that the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month by the Tribunal is incorrect; (ii) that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of deducting 1/4th; and (iii) that the Tribunal has also committed an error in adopting multiplier of ‘16’ instead of ‘17’. Sri N.Parameshwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposed the above contentions and sought to justify the award of the Tribunal. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not in dispute that except claiming that the deceased was a businessman, no evidence was placed in support thereof. No document showing the income of the deceased were also filed. Therefore, the Tribunal was compelled to adopt the notional income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month, which in my opinion is not unreasonable considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 1998. With regard to the other two contentions referred to above, in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the Supreme Court, after reviewing its earlier judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas[2] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra[3], held that in case of death of a married person leaving behind number of dependant family members between 4 and 6, 1/4th of his income shall be deducted towards his personal expenses. In this case, the deceased left behind four dependent family members i.e., his widow, mother and two children. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. Coming to the aspect of multiplier, in the abovementioned Supreme Court judgment, it was held that if the deceased was aged between 26 and 30 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’. The Tribunal has taken ‘16’ as multiplier. For the aforestated reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of deduction of income of the deceased towards personal expenses at 1/4th instead of 1/3rd and adopting the multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘16’. The remaining award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd September, 2010 GHN [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC) [2] 1994(2) SCC 176 [3] 1996(4)SCC 362 = 1996(4) ALD (SCSN)