THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.2908 of 2007 and Cross Objections. ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.536 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the parents and sister of deceased Y.Venkata Ramesh, have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. According to them, on 04.05.2003 at about 13.30 hours the deceased was going on a Suzuki Samurai Motorcycle from Mallapur to A.P.H.B.Colony and when he reached near N.F.C. main gate, a lorry bearing No.AP 31T 5436 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was aged 26 years and working as an Executive Director in International Data Group Inc. Hyderabad and drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month besides other allowances. The deceased had a bright academic record and he obtained 1st class in his intermediate examinations and he joined engineering in the year 1994 and he also acquired sufficient technical skills in several computer programmes and he worked as a Software engineer in big companies like ECIL, ASTC and in international Data Group, which is a multi national company based in United States. Because of the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident, the petitioners were put to mental agony and sustained loss of future income and support. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company has opposed the application by filing counter and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the age and income of the deceased and also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased Y.Venkata Ramesh, age 26 years, died in a Motor Accident, which occurred on 04.05.2003, at 13.00 hours, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 31T 5436? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.31 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 copy of the insurance policy was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP 31T 5436. With regard to quantum of compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal by taking into consideration of his salary certificate Ex.A.6 and his future prospects in employment, taken his salary as Rs.25,000/- per month. Since the deceased is unmarried, the contribution to the petitioners was taken as only 1/3rd and by applying the multiplier ‘12’ for the age of the mother of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.11,99,952/- towards loss of dependency of the petitioners and also awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 towards loss of love and affection, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,14,952/- rounded up to Rs.12,15,000/-. Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the insurance Company has filed the present appeal. The standing counsel for the insurance company has pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration of the future prospects of the deceased and fixing the monthly salary at Rs.25,000/- even though his gross salary is Rs.13,500/- per month and awarded excessive compensation. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, and P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, have stated about the employment of the deceased. According to them, he is drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. They also examined P.W.5, who is an Executive Director in International Data Group incorporation Management Services, has stated that the deceased joined in their company on 25.01.2002 as an Executive Director and he was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/-, which includes Rs.13,500/- as basic pay and Rs.6,500/- as allowances. Ex.A.6 is the salary certificate showing the gross salary of the deceased. According to P.W.5 taking into consideration of the experience, knowledge and the qualifications of the deceased, their company passed a resolution giving full rights to the deceased to operate S.B.I, Thirumalghary Branch, individually, besides the authorization to honour all cheques, drafts, bills of exchange, promissory notes on behalf of the company. Therefore, the petitioner even at the age of 26 years has reached high position as Executive director, had he been alive, he would have reached much higher positions in his career and drawn more amount towards his salary. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the above with regard to future prospects of the deceased, arrived at his monthly income at Rs.25,000/- per month. Since the deceased is aged 26 years and he is having permanent employment, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, 50% has to be taken into consideration towards his future prospects. Since the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.13,500/- as his basic pay, 50% has to be taken into consideration towards his future prospects, his income would be (Rs.13,500 + Rs.6750) Rs.20,250/- Since the deceased is unmarried, as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, his income comes to Rs.10,125/-. As the deceased is unmarried as on the date of his death, the age of his mother i.e. 2nd petitioner has to be taken into consideration for applying the appropriate multiplier. As observed by the Tribunal, the age of the 2nd petitioner is 47 years as per Ex.A.13. As per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the appropriate multiplier for the age of 47 years is ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.10,125 X 12 X 13 = Rs.15,79,500/- Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed their cross objections for enhancement of compensation, but in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in “New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigal, Tamil Nadu State and another v. Vasireddy Sujatharani (2011 (5) ALD 156 (DB), the cross objections are not maintainable. In “Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Limited and another (2011 ACJ 2418)” the Apex Court held that in an appeal filed challenging the quantum of compensation by the insurance company, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal if it is by the owner or insurer. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,15,000/-, but as observed above the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,79,500/-. Since the cross objections filed by the claimants are not maintainable, it has to be treated that there is no appeal filed by the claimants. Hence the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. Cross objections, filed by the claimants, are rejected as not maintainable. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:13-12-2011 Ksp