IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4123 of 2003 Between: Korrai Lakshmiu & 2 others .. Appellants AND Veeraveni Prasad & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4123 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.O.P.No.53 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 19.08.2002. 2. Korrai Demudu, S/o. Late Sanyasi, aged 39 years was working as a Watchman in Railways at Kothavalasa for a monthly salary of Rs.4,307/-. When he was going on 08.06.1999 to join his duty at about 5.30 a.m., lorry No.AP 37T 1397, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against him while he was taking tea. Demudu died on the spot. His body was subjected to post mortem at the Government Hospital, S. Kota and Kothavalasa Police registered Crime No.45 of 1999 against the lorry driver. Demudu left his wife, minor daughter and mother as his dependents who claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the first respondent/driver of the lorry, the second respondent/owner and the third respondent/insurer jointly and severally. 3. While the owner and the driver remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of all their allegations and desired the claimants to prove the first respondent having a valid driving licence, the vehicle having a valid permit and being roadworthy and the justness of the compensation claimed. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and relief to be granted. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5, X-1, X-2 and B-1 were marked. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the eye witness-P.W.2 corroborated by Ex.A-1- First Information Report, Ex.A-3-Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report and Ex.A-4-Charge Sheet as disclosing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. The absence of any contradicting evidence was also noted. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the age of the deceased as 39 years based on the date of birth given in Ex.X-2-Service Register. The salary was noted to be a gross sum of Rs.4,307/- from Exs.A-5, X-1 and X-2 read with the oral evidence of P.W.3. The net salary was noted to be Rs.3,269/- on the strength of which the annual salary was assessed at Rs.40,000/- and the loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.42,000/- taking into consideration the natural increase in pay and allowances which the deceased would have had. Deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and arrived at a total loss of dependency of Rs.3,64,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and on the total compensation of Rs.3,74,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs and directed the wife, minor daughter and mother to share the amount at Rs.1,74,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. 6. The claimants were aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and preferred the present appeal contending that the wrong application of multiplier ignoring the real income of the deceased and not compensating the loss of consortium adequately should lead to the grant of remaining compensation claimed by them before the Tribunal. 7. Heard Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the third respondent/insurer. The respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the lorry, remained unrepresented before this Court. 8. The driver or owner or insurer against whom the liability to pay the compensation was fixed jointly and severally by the impugned award did not challenge the same in any manner and, hence, the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the first respondent/driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the ownership of the vehicle with the second respondent/owner and its subsisting insurance with the third respondent/insurer have become final and the joint and several responsibility of respondents 1 to 3 to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Demudu is, therefore, clear. 9. It is only the quantum of compensation that remains to be adjudicated in this appeal. 10. The evidence of P.W.3, the Office Superintendent of South Eastern Railway at Visakhapatnam showed that the deceased Demudu was working as a Chowkidar and his service particulars were stated in Ex.X-2-Service Register, while his salary particulars were disclosed by Ex.X-1/Ex.A-5. While the evidence of P.W.3 was about the accident, the evidence of P.W.1, the wife, was about their dependence on Demudu and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased not being in dispute, the particulars stated in Exs.X-1 and X-2 should form the basis for assessment of the compensation. Ex.X-2-Extract of the Service Register shows that Demudu was appointed for the first time on 01.07.1988 and his services were regularized as Gang man in a regular time scale. Ex.X-2 also shows that the appointment was regular and his widow was neither employed nor paid compensation after the death of Demudu. His salary particulars, as seen from Ex.X-1, show that the gross pay was Rs.4,307/- in May, 1999, and the deductions included repayment of provident fund advance, profession tax and repayment of a loan. On this material, the deductions that could have been taken into account for reducing the assessment of income could not have been to the extent of limiting such income to Rs.3,269/- out of Rs.4,307/- and the income should have been assessed at a minimum of Rs.3,600/- or Rs.3,700/-. 11. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] governs the principles for assessment of compensation and in the case of the deceased having a permanent job and being aged below 40 years, the Apex Court directed an addition of 50% to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects and that the deceased definitely had such prospects is evident from the progress in the career he has made as seen from Ex.X-2 and if so, his monthly capability to earn should be assessed at Rs.5,400/- adding 50% to Rs.3,600/- and if total loss of income were to be so computed on the appropriate multiplier of 15 applicable as per the above decision, the same comes to Rs.9,72,000/-. 1/3r d of the said income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses, the dependents being only three in number and the balance towards loss of dependency itself comes to Rs.6,48,000/- . In addition, the claimants would also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants would have, therefore, got Rs.6,68,000/- as just and adequate compensation. The claimants, however, limited their claim before the Tribunal and this Court also only to Rs.6,00,000/- and the same has to be awarded by enhancing the compensation by Rs.2,26,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry proportionate costs on it, while interest on the same can be limited to 6% per annum in view of the liability to pay such interest for more than a decade. The amount awarded has to be modified accordingly. 12. Therefore, the award, dated 19.08.2002, in M.O.P.No.53 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the enhanced compensation shall be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared between the claimants 1 to 3. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4123 of 2003 Date: 28th March, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298