THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2044 of 2006 Oral judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellants, who are the claimants, have filed this M.A.C.M.A. against the common order dated 02.02.2008, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, insofar as it relates to M.V.O.P. No. 1220 of 2000, awarding compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- as against their claim for Rs. 30,00,000/- contending that the same is very low and needs to be enhanced. On 07.09.2000 at about 11.30 A.M., while the deceased, namely Karra Manoj Kumar, was going from Bhattiprolu to Khammam, in a car bearing No. WB 02A 0537, for selling ayurvedic medicines at Khammam, he met with an accident when a lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 3524, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car. The deceased died on the sport. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the lorry. The appellants, who are the wife and children and respondent No.3, who is the mother of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.30,00,000/- against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company with which the lorry was insured, contending that the deceased was a Ayurvedic Doctor, he was running Raghava Ayurvedic Hospital at Bhattiprolu, and used to sell ayurvedic medicines and earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. That the deceased was an income tax payee. That he was hale and healthy and that they are dependent upon him and due to his sudden death, they have lost dependency. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry was set e x parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, filed counter contending that the driver of the lorry was not have valid driving licence. The crime vehicle was not insured with them as on the date of accident. The petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner of the car and the insurance company with which it was insured and that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver; whether there is any violation of the conditions of the policy by respondent No.1 so as to exonerate respondent No.2 from paying the compensation and; whether the appellants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom. This M.V.O.P. was tried along with another M.V.O.P. No.1208 of 2000, filed by the legal heirs of the deceased-car driver. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to 15, while respondent No.2 neither examined any witness or marked any document. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver; that respondent No.2 failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by respondent No.1 so as to exonerate them from paying the compensation; so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the income tax returns, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, arrived his contribution to the family at Rs.40,000/- per annum and considering the fact that the deceased was aged 30 years applied the multiplier and worked out the future loss of dependency at Rs. 7,20,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- to appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium; Rs.6,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation and made respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the same to the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased as an Ayurvedic Doctor was earning income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and was also filing income tax returns, as is evident from Exs. A6 to A10, but the Tribunal committed an error in fixing his annual income at Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of computing the compensation. He further submitted that the deceased had four dependants, and one-fourth of his salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses, and not one-third as deducted by the Tribunal. Hence, he prayed that the compensation be re-calculated by taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and by deducting only one-fourth towards his personal expenses. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the award passed by the Tribunal. He contended that since the deceased was aged 30 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 17, but it committed an error in applying the multiplier 18. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The deceased was an RMP Doctor. The appellants though claimed that the deceased was earning income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and also paying income tax, the fact remains, the deceased under Exs. A6 to 8-income tax returns for the year 1997-98 has shown his income at Rs.1,24,140/- per annum, for the year 1998-99, he has shown his income at Rs.1,44,530/- and agricultural income at Rs.1,51,400/- per annum and for the year 1999-2000, he has shown his income at Rs.1,41,238/- and agricultural income at Rs.81,540/- per annum. As the deceased was also paying income tax, we feel that ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.90,000/- is fixed as his annual income. Accordingly, we fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the number of dependants is four to six, one-fourth of the salary of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. The deceased, admittedly, is having four dependants, wife, two children and mother. Therefore, only one- fourth of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Upon deduction of one-fourth from his annual salary of Rs.90,000/-, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.67,500/- per annum. The deceased, admittedly, was aged 30 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier applicable to a person aged 30 years is 17. Since the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 18, we take the reduced multiplier 17 and multiply the same with the annual contribution by the deceased to his (Rs.67,500 x 17), and on doing so, the future loss of dependency of the appellants on account of the deceased would be Rs.11,47,500/-, which they are entitled to as compensation. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the spouse of the deceased is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- to appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, while the compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate, is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The compensation towards funeral expenses is increased from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Thus in all, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 11,72,500/-, which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,50,000/- to Rs.11,72,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 8th November, 2011 NN/KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121