HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.Nos.2541 of 2002 and 2543 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the order and decree dated 28.02.2002 in M.V.O.P.Nos.120 of 1997 and 118 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. These arise out of common accident and the deceased in both the O.Ps are husband and wife. Though the Court below disposed of both the OPs by separate judgments, both the appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Publications are filed. None appeared for the respondents. 3. The facts of the case are that on 13.06.1996 while both the deceased were going on scooter at Padmajiwadi, in Nizamabad District, lorry bearing No.KA-02-7474 driven by its driver came in a high speed and dashed the scooter. On account of the accident, both the deceased died. The husband was aged 35 years and was working as a Teacher, the wife was also working as Asst.Teacher was aged about 30 years. In both the O.P.s the claimants as legal representatives claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in each O.P. 4. First respondent remained ex parte and second/United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying the petition allegations. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-7474 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners in both the O.Ps, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. On the basis of the material on record in both the O.Ps the Court below granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each. In O.P.No.120 of 1997, the Court below held that the deceased was aged 35 years and Ex.A.6 salary certificate shows that he was taking salary of Rs.2971/- as a Government Teacher, the trial Court took the salary as Rs.4,000/- per month in view of future enhancement of the emoluments, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum and taken the contribution to the family at Rs.32,000/- per annum, applied multiplier ‘17’ and held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,44,000/-. But as the claim was Rs.5,00,000/- the same was awarded. 8. In O.P.No.118 of 1997, the Court below taken the age of the deceased as 36 years and the salary reveals as Rs.3,221/-. Here also her salary is taken as Rs.4,000/- keeping in view the future enhancement of the income and taken the contribution to the family at Rs.32,000/- per annum, applied multiplier ‘16’ and held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,29,500/-. But as the claim was Rs.5,00,000/-, the same was awarded. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in both the O.Ps, the insurance company filed the appeals. 9. As the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in both the CMAs is that the Court below erroneously has taken the income at Rs.4,000/- per month and granted higher compensation, though at the time of accident they were drawing around Rs.3,000/- per month the Court below has taken the income at Rs.4,000/- per month keeping in view the future enhancement of emoluments as on the date of accident, both the deceased were aged about 36 and 37 years only and were left with another 20 years of service. There was nothing wrong in the finding of the Court below in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month as in case of Government servants there would be periodical enhancement, on account of pay revisions etc., we can take judicial notice of the fact that the salary of a Teacher would be not less than Rs.10,000/- per month as on today. 10. Considering the circumstances, the awarding of Rs.5,00,000/- in each O.P. cannot be held to be on higher side, atleast from the present day standards and in view of the latest legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in "SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION"[1]. I see no grounds to allow these appeals and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. However, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum in both the O.P.s. 11. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed, however reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th November 2010, PNV [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104