IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 & 1720 of 2010 DATE: 30.11.2010 M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 Between: Anjumeti Vijaya Kumari and others …… Appellants And E.Subbarangaiah and another …..Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.1720 of 2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Ltd., …… Appellant And Anjumeti Vijaya Kumari and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 & 1720 of 2010 JUDGMENT: Questioning award dated 20.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2003 awarding compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- as against claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, both the claimants as well as the insurance company filed these two appeals respectively. 2) In these appeals, there is no dispute about factum of accident and about rash and negligent driving of driver of the accident vehicle resulting in this accident. The claimants dispute quantum of compensation. On the other hand, the insurance company disputes its liability to pay compensation in respect of passenger travelling in the car and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal. In so far as liability of the insurance company is concerned, the insurance company could not substantiate its contention by leading any evidence by way of either oral evidence or documentary evidence. Therefore, I find that the insurance company cannot escape from liability in this claim. 3) The deceased was working as police constable in Kadapa district unit. The claimants filed Ex.A-6 salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa. It shows that basic salary of the deceased was Rs.4,700/-, gross salary was Rs.6,617/- and after deductions his net salary was Rs.6,207/-. Finding of the lower Tribunal that net salary of the deceased was Rs.4,105/- is erroneous. Since the deceased was a police constable, apart from basic salary, family planning increment, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and additional house rent allowance and he has other allowances like R.A and K.M.A (kit maintenance allowance). Other allowances viz., R.A and K.M.A are personal in nature and they cannot be taken into gross pay. After deducting R.A and Rs.100/- and K.M.A of Rs.45/-, gross salary of the deceased comes to Rs.6,472/-. For the said salary, there is no incidence of income tax. The deceased was paying profession tax of Rs.80/- per month. It has to be deducted from gross salary. After its deduction, salary to be taken into consideration would be Rs.6,392/-. Since the deceased was aged 35 years, the lower Tribunal rightly took the multiplier as 16. 1/3 of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. The lower Tribunal rightly held that the 4th claimant who is father of the deceased is not dependant on the deceased. It follows that since father is alive, mother also cannot be taken as dependant on the deceased as she is dependant on her husband. After deduction of 1/3 of income of the deceased, the multiplicand comes to Rs.6,392 – Rs.2,131 = Rs.4,261/-. Loss of dependency comes to Rs.4261x12x16=Rs.8,18,112/-. For the said amount, 50% thereof has to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.4,19,056/-. Apart from the above pecuniary compensation, the claimants are entitled for non- pecuniary compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funereal expenses. If all the above amounts are added, then the amount crosses the claim made before the lower Tribunal to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4 ) M.A.C.M.A.No.1720 of 2010: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 5) M.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2008: In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.5,25,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 30, 2010 ksh