IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1099 of 1998 Between: Smt.Moida Rajeswari and others ... APPELLANTS AND B. Srinivasa Rao and others ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants against the order and decree in O.P.No.382 of 1997, dated 26-12-1997 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Venkata Ramana, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29-06-1997 at 3.30 p.m., near Visakha Valley School road junction, Visakhapatnam, while he was going on a motorcycle and when it was hit by lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0797. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as Deputy Head Assistant in State Bank of India and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,047-95 ps. per month. The claimants filed the O.P. claiming total compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company filed counter- affidavit denying the allegations and contested the O.P. 3. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation claimed for ? 2. To what relief ? 4. On behalf of the petitioners PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents except marking Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy. 5. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,88,000/- holding the respondents 1 to 3 liable the same. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute about the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. The only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for higher compensation than awarded by the Tribunal. 7. As per the material available on record, the deceased was aged 38 years as on the date of accident. He was working as Deputy Head Assistant in State Bank of Hyderabad, Nellimarla Branch, and getting a salary of Rs.8,047-95 ps. The facts reveal that the deceased was left with 20 years of service and was going to be promoted in the near future. Having regard to the overall circumstances and also taking into consideration of his future enhancement of income, the Tribunal rightly assessed his income at Rs.11,000/- per month and by applying the right multiplier ‘12’, arrived at the compensation of Rs.10,56,000/- towards loss of dependency. 8. Out of the annual income of the deceased, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as the dependents are more than four as is held in Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] the amount that has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased should not be exceeded to 1/4th. This position also cannot be disputed. 9. Thus, in case, 1/4th of the annual income is deducted out of the earnings of the deceased, the petitioners would be entitled for compensation of Rs.11,88,000/- (99,000 x 12 = 11,88,000) towards loss of dependency itself. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,20,000/- (11,88,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 2,000 = 12,20,000) instead of Rs.10,88,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (12,20,000 – 10,88,000 = 1,32,000) shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the O.P. till realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the same proportions of the earlier amount. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010 Pn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1099 of 1998 June 21, 2010 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121