THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. Nos.3272 and 3425 of 2005 Date : 25-02-2010 M.A. C.M.A. No.3272 of 2005 Between : Surender Kumar Sahni and another .. Appellants And B.Sampath Kumar Chary and another .. Respondents AND M.A. C.M.A. No.3425 of 2005 Between : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, 4th Floor, Al-Karim Trade Center, Ranigunj, Secunderabad & others .. Appellant And Sunder Kumar Sahni and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. Nos. 3272 and 3425 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: Both these appeals, one by the claimants and the other by M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited are filed against the judgment dated 29-07-2005 passed in O.P. No. 415 of 2002 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal). Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. The fact that the deceased Suneet Sahni died in an accident that occurred on Sagar Road on 08.09.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. when a scooter bearing Registration No. AP 28P 4585 coming in the opposite direction hit the scooter bearing Registration No. AP 11E 1730 on which the deceased was travelling, is not in dispute. The fact that as to who is responsible for the accident and with whom the offending vehicle was insured, is also not in dispute. However, the only dispute raised in these two appeals is with regard to award of compensation by the Tribunal, the claimants contending that the compensation awarded is very low while the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company contending that the compensation awarded is excessive. The claimants are father and mother of the deceased. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased at the time of accident was 21 years old, was studying BCA Final year and was actively involved in poultry business run by their family under the name of M/s. Sahni Poultry Farm. The deceased was having 30% share in the said poultry business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants to prove that the income of the deceased during the year 2001-02 itself was Rs.80,483/-, filed Income Tax Returns and examined P.W.3-Chartered Accountant to show that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month. He submitted that considering the fact that the deceased at the time of accident was studying BCA, having regard to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union[1], his minimum salary should be taken at 12,000/-, and as he was a bachelor, 50% of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses, but Tribunal has erroneously taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and deducted one-third of the said amount towards personal expenses. He further submitted that given the fact that the age of the mother of the deceased was 47, having regard to the judgment of the apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.[2], the correct multiplier of 13 should have been applied, but the Tribunal erroneously has applied the multiplier of 12. Hence, he prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants be determined by taking fixing the salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 13. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and applying the multiplier of ‘12’ in determining the compensation payable. He submitted that since the mother of the deceased was aged 47 years, the multiplier ‘9’ should be applied. Hence, he prayed that the compensation payable to the claimants requires reduction. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and having perused the under appeal, the only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs enhancement as claimed by the claimants or requires reduction as prayed for by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company? As can be seen from the record, the deceased at the time of death was 21 years. He was studying final year BCA course. The evidence placed on record shows that apart from studying, after college hours, he was assisting his family in the running of the poultry business. Even though the claimants placed some evidence to show that the deceased was earning income in poultry business as a shareholder, we do not wish to take the said amount into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation, because at the time of the accident, the deceased was studying BCA final year. I n B. Ramullamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, a Division Bench of this Court held that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/-, and similarly the minimum salary of a person, who has completed M.Tech., M.C.A., M.B.A., can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, and 50% of the said amounts should be deducted towards personal expenses in case of bachelors. In the instant case, since the deceased at the time of his death was studying BCA final year, his monthly income, can be taken at Rs.10,000/-, and as the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the said income should be taken towards his personal expenses, and if 50% of the salary is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family would be Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, and was survived by his parents, the multiplier as applicable to the age of his mother has to be taken, for the purpose of computing the compensation. As the mother of the deceased was 47 years, the correct multiplier, that can be taken as per the judgment of the apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., is 13. By application of the said multiplier 13, the total compensation, which the claimants would be entitled to due to the death of the deceased is Rs. 7,80,000/- i.e. (Rs. 60,000/- x 13). Apart from the said compensation, the claimants will also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and support and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, as ordered by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,15,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,15,000/- to Rs.8,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. In view of the foregoing discussion, it cannot be said that the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is excessive, and rather it has to be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and requires enhancement. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the claimants and against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. In the result, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 3272 of 2005 is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation, as indicated above, and the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 3425 of 2005 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th February, 2010. Skmr [1] 2009 (6) ALT 785 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298