IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.533 of 2006 Dated:15-12-2011 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited. ….Appellant. And Smt. S.Ganasri and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.533 of 2006 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.3057 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad on 17.11.2005. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal and they have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for the death of the deceased S.Jitender in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 11.08.2003. The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the minor daughter, petitioners 3 and 4 are the parents and petitioner No.5 is the mentally retarded brother of the deceased. According to them, on 11.08.2003 at 12.30 P.M. the deceased Jitender was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP 10S 2560 from Secunderabad towards Kukatpally and reached in front of IDPL fire station, Balanagar, at that time one Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28T 8313 was also proceeding in the same direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter of the deceased from behind. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road from the scooter and received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased completed his engineering in Electrical Branch from Pune University and was working as a Sales Executive in M/S Electrical Lines, Ranigunj, Secunderabad and drawing monthly salary of Rs.13,000/- including incentives. The deceased is only an earning member in the family. The deceased was an engineering graduate and he has got bright future prospects. Hence, they are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- The 1st respondent set exparte. The 2nd respondent insurance company has filed the counter denying the averments made in the petition and contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or in facts and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to age, occupation and income of the deceased. According to the 2nd respondent, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The driver of the Tata Sumo is not having valid driving license, as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation 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 accident took place on 11.08.2003 on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28T 8313? (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 and 3 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 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 the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28T 8313. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not questioned by the insurance company in the appeal. With regard to the quantum of compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal by taking into consideration of the salary of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier 18 arrived at Rs.18,71,856/- towards loss of dependency of the petitioners. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.l5,000/- to the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,00,856/- but restricted the compensation to Rs.19,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% P.A. on the above said compensation. The standing counsel for the insurance company questioning the said compensation pleaded that the net income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation and the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration of the incentives and also the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side, as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced. The claimants’ counsel on the other hand justified the award passed by the Tribunal. According to P.W.1 the deceased is working as sales executive in M/s Electrical Lines, Ranigunj, Secunderabad and he was drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. In support of her contention, she has got marked Ex.A.8 salary certificate. She also examined P.W.3, who is Senior Marketing Manager in Electrical Lines, Ranigunj. P.W.3 has stated that the deceased was appointed as sales executive in their firm and his basic salary was Rs.5,300/- and incentives ranging from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. Ex.A.8 was issued by their office and it is signed by one Prashanti Kumari, who is authorized signatory on behalf of the firm. As per Ex.A.8 the deceased was drawing Rs.13,000/- including incentives. His basic pay is only Rs.5,300/- and the remaining amount towards allowances and incentives. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration that the income of the sales executive depending upon caliber and capacity of the sales made by him during the period of his employment and the incentives granted to him cannot be deleted from the salary. Ex.A.8 is the salary certificate shows the amount of salary paid for last 4 months and the average of the said income comes to Rs.13,000/- per month. Thus, the lower Court has rightly taken into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and arrived at the income of the deceased at Rs.8,666/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 29 years, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, the proper multiplier that is applicable is ‘17’, but whereas the Tribunal has taken into consideration the multiplier ‘18’. Thus by applying the multiplier ‘17’, the total loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.8,666 X 12 X 17 = Rs.17,67,864/-. Apart from the above said amount of loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded Rs.l5,000/- to the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, and the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for Rs.17,87,864/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% on the compensation, but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the interest to which the petitioner entitled is only 6% on the total compensation amount. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.17,87,864/- from 19,00,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:15-12-2011 Ksp​