THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4295 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Bachu Sivasankar Reddy, husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of 5th respondent was employed s a Work Inspector in the A.P. Housing Board in Kurnool. On 17.02.2001, he went to Srisailam on official duty in a zeep bearing No.AP 21 V 1877 owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent. In his return journey to Kurnool, an accident occurred on account of collision between the zeep and a lorry bearing No.ABT 2290 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent at Cumbum Choultry. Sivasankar Reddy is said to have died on the spot. The appellants filed M.V.O.P.N.585 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool claiming a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and he was aged 35 years by the time he died. Respondents 1 and 3, owners of the concerned vehicles, remained ex parte. The insurance companies i.e., respondents 2 and 4 contested the matter. They disputed the facts pleaded by the appellants as regards the salary of the deceased and the circumstances that led to the accident. The Tribunal passed an order dated 24.10.2003 awarding a sum of Rs.6,09,795/- and apportioning the same among the appellants and respondent No.5. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation. Sri Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal did not apply the relevant parameters in the context of determining the compensation. He contends that since the deceased was an employee in a Government organization, the future enhancement ought to have been taken into account. He further submits that an incorrect multiplier was applied. Sri Kota Subba Rao, leanred Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, leanred Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent on the other hand submit that the Tribunal has taken into account Ex.A.6, the salary certificate for determining the compensation and that no interference is warranted. On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined ad Exs.A1 to A.4 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed. P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the accident. He has narrated the manner, in which the accident had occurred. The F.I.R. in Crime No.9 of 2011 registered in relation to the accident was filed as Ex.A.1. The inquest report in respect of the deceased was filed as Ex.A.2. The Tribunal recorded a clear finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicles and apportioned their liability at 70% (lorry) and 30% (zeep). The said finding is not challenged by the respondents. The appellants seek enhancement of the compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed as a Work Inspector. Ex.A.4 is the salary certificate issued by the employer. According to this, he was drawing salary of Rs.4,978/-. The Tribunal effected deduction of one-third from it towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. Two aspects become relevant in this regard. The first is that in case the deceased in the accident is an employee drawing definite salary, the prospective enhancement of the salary needs to be taken into account. The second is that in case, the number of dependants are more than three, the deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased shall be one- fourth. In the instant case, the Tribunal did not take into account any future enhancement of the salary. IN view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited [1], the salary of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.7,467/-. One-fourth of it needs to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. Then, it would come to Rs.5,625/-. The annual loss of dependency would be Rs.67,500/-. The deceased was aged 35 years. The multiplier applicable for a person of that age is ‘16’. The total loss of dependency for the family would be Rs.10,80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium for the first appellant, a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards love and affection in favour of respondents 2 and 3. The same needs to be retained. The total compensation would be 11,00,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. Out of this, the first appellant shall be entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- and appellants 2 and 3 and respondent No.5 shall be entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each. The C.M.A is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 28.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4295 of 2004 Date: 28.12.2011 JSU [1] 2009 (6) SCC 1201