THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2841 & 2877 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the order, dated 20.12.2006, in O.P.No.378 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- with interest @ 1.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of her husband-Pawan Kumar Chawla, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.10.2003. 3rd respondent is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimant, on that day, when the deceased was going on the road near Aswathappa’s grape garden a lorry bearing No..KA 04C 1062, coming from Bangalore, dashed against the deceased, and the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.155 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the lorry by the police, Vijayapura, Bangalore. The deceased was stated to be aged 33 years, doing business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Claimant pleaded that herself and the deceased were under judicial separation as per the orders of the Family Court in O.P.No.637 of 1997, dated 12.08.1998, and she filed a suit-O.S.No.179 of 1997 for maintenance and by judgment, dated 01.04.2003, the Family Court awarded her maintenance of Rs1500/- per month. 1st respondent- owner of the lorry and 2nd respondent-insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 3rd respondent also filed counter alleging that the claimant deserted the deceased four months after their marriage. 4. During enquiry, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked and 3rd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer. The Tribunal estimated the compensation payable at Rs.6,80,000/- and apportioned the same by awarding Rs.50,000/- to the 3rd respondent and the remaining Rs.6,30,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, claimant who is the wife of the deceased, and the 3rd respondent-mother of the deceased, filed these two appeals. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd from out of the amount of Rs.5000/- while estimating the loss of dependency. The mother of the deceased filed the appeal contending that the amount of Rs.50,000/- allotted to her is too meager. 7. Ex.A14-certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.179 of 1997 would show that there were matrimonial disputes between the claimant-wife of the deceased and they were under judicial separation and that the claimant was awarded Rs.5000/- per month towards maintenance. Ex.A.14 contains elaborate discussion regarding the business income of the deceased. After taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced by both sides, in support of the respective contentions, the Court estimated the amount of maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month through Ex.A.14. The said amount of Rs.5000/- per month is the income of the claimant by way of maintenance and certainly not the income of the deceased. The question of deducting any amount towards personal expenses of the deceased from out of the said amount of Rs.5000/- does not simply arise. The Tribunal has clearly erred in making a deduction from the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. 8. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged 42 years and the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION’, would be ‘16’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,60,000/- ( Rs.5000/- X 12 X 16). As the claimant was under judicial separation from the deceased, the question of awarding any amount towards loss of consortium does not arise. The mother of the deceased is aged about 70 years. The amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards her share of compensation is considered to be meagre. In the circumstances, out of the total compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-, 3rd respondent-mother is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and the claimant-wife is held entitled for the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th October, 2011 Tsy