THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 1923 of 2006 and Cross Objections (SR). No. 49713 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 01.04.2005 passed in O.P. No. 414 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nizamabad, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and needs to be reduced, while the claimants preferred cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation. Respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, filed the above O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- from the appellant and respondent No.6, for the death of one Lava Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 06.12.2002. Respondent No.1 is wife, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the children of the deceased. It was their case that on 06.12.2002, the deceased was proceeding to Nizamabad from Armoor on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25/G-9884, on National Highway No.16, and when he crossed Ankapoor village and reached Godavari Seeds Company, the scooter bearing No.AP-25/B-6056 coming in the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road at high speed, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and the front wheel of the scooter ran over him. The deceased sustained severe injuries in the accident and was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where he succumbed to the injuries at 11.30 p.m. on the same day. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a government teacher and was also an agriculturist and was earning Rs.2,40,000/- per annum and contributing the same to the family. They claimed compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the motor accident, payable by respondent No.6 who is the owner of the crime vehicle and the appellant-insurance company. The appellant filed written statement resisting the claim of the claimants, while respondent No.6- owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A11 on their behalf, while no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal, having framed the issues and having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle owned by respondent No.6 and insured with the appellant. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,19,036/- to the claimants, payable by the appellant and respondent No.6 jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, and apportioned the same amongst the claimants as detailed in the order under appeal, and accordingly allowed the petition in part. The counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that as the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], is ‘15’, and the rate of interest shall also be reduced to 6% per annum, in view of the said decision. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the claimants- cross-objectors submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased, who died at the age of 36 years. He further submitted that as the dependants are five in number, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4t h of his income, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case and the funeral expenses have to be increased by another Rs.2,500/-. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. A perusal of the evidence discloses that the deceased studied M.A. B.Ed. and was working as School Assistant (Arts) in Z.P. High School, Rampoor. Ex.A5 salary certificate would go to show that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.9,386/- per month, as on the date of accident. Though the claimants contended that the deceased was cultivating the agricultural land and earning an annual income of Rs.1,20,000/- on agriculture, the fact remains, except the title deeds in the name of the mother of the deceased, they have not filed any pahanies to prove that it is only the deceased, who was cultivating the lands owned by his mother, or produced any kind of evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum on agriculture. In the absence of any evidence to prove his income on agriculture, the Tribunal had taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.9,386/- per month, as mentioned in Ex.A5 salary certificate, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency to his family, which cannot be found fault with. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. Since the deceased had a permanent job and was aged below 40 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the actual salary of the deceased can be made towards future prospects. On such addition, the salary of the deceased would come to Rs.14,079/- per month i.e. Rs.1,68,948/- per annum. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma case, as the deceased had five dependants, the deduction towards his personal expenses should be 1/4th of his income and on such deduction, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.1,26,711/- per annum. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident. Thus, the appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision in Sarla Verma case, is ‘15’. If the annual income of Rs.1,26,711/- is multiplied by 15, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.19,00,665/-. In addition, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Even though the claimants-cross-objectors are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,25,665/-, but as the claim of the claimants itself is for Rs.16,00,000/-, we restrict the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.16,00,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- and in view of the decision of Sarla Verma case, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants made by the Tribunal is undisturbed and in addition, the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each, from out of the enhanced compensation, and the remaining amount shall be taken by the widow of the deceased. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and allow the cross- objections. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 4th August, 2011 IBL [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121