THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 22 of 2006 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.11377 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per NVR,J) The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order, dated 22.06.2005, passed in O.P.No.62 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very high and needs to be reduced, while the claimants preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.12.2001, while the deceased Koyyala Manohar was going on his scooter bearing No.AP 25F 1938 from Adilabad towards Nirmal, and on reaching Thanapur village shivar, he met with an accident when a lorry bearing No. HR 38D 1380 dashed against the scooter from behind. The deceased fell down and he died instantaneously when the front wheel of the lorry ran over him. On account of his death, the respondents-claimants, who are his parents, wife and children, filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The deceased at the time of accident was about 38 years. He was working as Government Teacher and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., and contributing the same to the claimants, and on account of his sudden demise, they have lost dependency. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter stating that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed by the respondents-claimants is excessive. On behalf of the respondents-claimants, P.Ws 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.15,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondents-claimants is excessive. The Tribunal instead of taking the gross salary of the deceased, ought to have taken his net salary for the purpose of computation of compensation. The Tribunal without there being any evidence placed by the respondents-claimants that he had good future prospects in his career, erroneously doubled the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 44, but the Tribunal erroneously took his age at ‘40’ and applied higher multiplier. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the order under appeal needs to be reduced. The learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants filed cross- objections contending that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 38 years, but the Tribunal has erroneously took the age of the deceased at 40 years and applied lower multiplier, for the purpose of computing the compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and needs to be enhanced. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants- cross-objectors and perused the judgment and award under appeal. The fact that the deceased died on 9.12.2001 in a motor accident, which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, is not in dispute. However, the dispute is only with regard to grant of compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company contends that the compensation granted is on the higher side and needs reduction, while the respondents-claimants contend that the compensation granted is very low and needs enhancement. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was working as Government Teacher. Though the respondents-claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but as is evident from Ex.A.5-salary certificate of the deceased, the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was getting Rs.8,181/- per month. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant-Insurance Company to disprove Ex.A5-salary certificate, we are of the considered opinion that the salary of the deceased, as reflected in Ex.A5-salary certificate can be taken at Rs.8.181/- per month. Though the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 47 years, while the respondents-claimants claimed that the deceased was 38 years, the fact remains, neither the appellant-Insurance Company nor the claimants adduced any material before the Tribunal to prove their respective contentions as regards the age of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident. In the absence of any documents, such as date of birth certificate or service register of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as ‘40’ years, as mentioned in Ex.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A3-inquest report, and we do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal taking the age of the deceased at ‘40’ years. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was working as Government Teacher. His employment was permanent. The Tribunal admittedly added 100% of the actual salary to the actual salary of the deceased towards his future prospects. But as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case V. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the deceased was aged between 40 and below 50 years, and had a permanent employment, 30% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects. As the deceased had permanent employment and since the age of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident has been taken at 40 years, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma case, 30% of his actual salary should be added to his actual salary towards future prospects. On such addition (Rs.8,181/- per month +Rs.2,454/-), the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.10,635/-. The deceased had six dependants. The Tribunal, admittedly, deducted one-third of the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma case, where the deceased had four to six dependants, then one-fourth of his salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Since the deceased had six dependants, only one-fourth of his salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses. On such deduction, (Rs.10,635/- minus Rs.2,658.75), his contribution to the family would be Rs.7,976.25 per month or Rs.95,715/- per annum. The Tribunal having taken the age of the deceased at 40 years, applied the multiplier 15.5. But as per the judgment of the Apex Court i n Sarla Varma case, the relevant multiplier applicable to a person aged 40 years, is ‘15’. Hence, the total future loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased (Rs.95,715 x 15), would come to Rs.14,35,725/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to respondent-claimant No.3, but as per the judgment of the Apex Court, only Rs.10,000/- should be awarded towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the compensation under the head “loss of consortium’ payable to respondent-claimant No.3 is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.500/- towards transport expenses for transportation of the dead body of the deceased and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The expenses, under both the said head put together, is raised to Rs.5,000/-. Thus, in all, the respondents-claimants would be entitled to Rs.14,50,725/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the compensation payable at 9% per annum, but as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case, the interest on the compensation payable has to be reduced to 6% per annum, and the same is accordingly reduced. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,45,000/- to Rs.14,50,725/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the O.P. till the date of realisation. The Cross- objections filed by the respondents-claimants are dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J __________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J Dated: 21-12-2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 22 of 2006 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.11377 of 2006 (Common Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 21.12.2011 Nn [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121