THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 2566 of 2008 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant, namely M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, filed this appeal questioning the award dated 07.05.2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in M.V.O.P. No. 162 of 2005, awarding compensation of Rs. 15,73,116/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the respondents-claimants as against their claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, contending that the same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. On 26.01.2004, at about 1.00 p.m., while the deceased-N.J. Krishnan along with his wife, was going on his TVS Victor, he met with an accident, when the Milk Tanker, bearing No. AP 03U 4884, belonging to respondent No.4, dashed against the motorcycle. In the accident, the deceased severe injuries. He was rushed to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, but unfortunately, he died on the same day. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the Milk Tanker. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the wife and children of the deceased, contending that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 45 years, was working as Junior Telephones Officer, that he was earning Rs.18,532/- per month, that they are dependant on the deceased, and that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost dependency, filed M.V.O.P. on the file of the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.4, who is the owner of the Milk Tanker and the appellant, with whom the Milk Tanker was insured. Respondent No.4-owner of the Milk Tanker remained ex parte. While the appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying its liability to pay the compensation stating that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driver of the Milk Tanker by its driver, that the quantum of compensation claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3- claimants is excessive and exorbitant. They thus prayed that the M.V.O.P. be dismissed. The Tribunal considering the rival pleadings, framed two issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and whether respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to compensation as prayed for. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A8, while the appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in and the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent of the driving of the Milk Tanker by its Driver. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal having taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.17832/-, deducted one-third thereof towards his personal expenses, and worked out his contribution to the family at Rs. 1,39,056/- per annum, and considering the fact that the deceased was aged 45 years, applied the multiplier 11, and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.15,29,616/-; awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.5,000/- each to claimant Nos. 2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection; Rs.15,000/- to claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium; Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.1,000/- towards transportation of dead body of the deceased. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,73,116/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants and held that both the appellant and respondent No.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed the award, which is called in question, by the appellant- Insurance Company in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that as evidenced by Ex. A6-salary certificate, the gross monthly salary of the deceased is Rs.16,020/-, but the Tribunal any basis, merely basing on the evidence of P.W.2, committed an error in taking the gross monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.18,532/- for the purpose of computing the compensation. Hence, he submitted that the salary of the deceased be taken at Rs.16,020/- and the compensation be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the judgment under appeal, and to show that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing Rs.18,641/- per month produced certificate dated 20.08.2011 issued by the Additional General Manager, BSNL, as additional evidence. Hence, he submitted that no reduction in the compensation is warranted and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was working as Junior Telephone Officer in BSNL. Even though the appellant contends that the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.16,020/- and the Tribunal, merely basing on the evidence of P.W.2, took the salary of the deceased at Rs.18,532/- for the purpose of computing the compensation, the fact remains, a perusal of Ex. A6- salary certificate, read with the evidence of P.W.2-Accounts Officer in BSNL, would disclose that in the month of December, 2003, the salary of the deceased was Rs.18,532/-. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the deceased was also paying Rs.12,000/- per annum, towards income tax. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to show that the salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.18,641/ -, produced the certificate dated 20.08.2011 issued by the Additional General Manager, BSNL, as additional evidence. The said certificate, certified that upto January, 2004, the deceased was paid monthly salary of Rs.18,641/-. In view of this certificate, read with Ex. A6-salary certificate and the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be said that the salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.16,020/-, and that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.18,532/-. Hence, the salary of the deceased can be taken at Rs.18,532/- per month as evident from Ex. A6-salary. As can be seen from Ex. A6- salary certificate, the deceased was paying Rs.1,000/- per month towards income tax and Rs.250/- towards professional tax. If the said amounts are deducted from the gross salary (Rs.18,532/- minus Rs.1,150/-) his net income would come to Rs.17,382/-. From out of the said amount, one-third should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased (Rs.17,382/- minus Rs. 5,794/-), and on such deduction, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.11,588/- per month and (Rs.11,588/- x 12) Rs.1,39,056/- per annum. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 45 years, and the relevant multiplier applicable to that age is 11, and if the annual contribution of the deceased is multiplied by the multiplier 11 (Rs.1,39,056/- x 11), the loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,29,616/-, which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to towards compensation. Apart from the said amount, as per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants are entitled to only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, while respondent No.1-claimant is entitled to only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said heads is reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also entitled to Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation costs, as awarded by the Tribunal. However, they are not entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. Thus, in all, respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants are entitled to Rs.15,53,116/-, which the appellant and respondent No.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,73,116/- to Rs.15,53,116/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 28th October, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121