IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2569 of 2007 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool ..... APPELLANT AND Virupa Aruna and others ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: (PER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17-04-2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.369 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in part and granted compensation of Rs.14,10,000/-. 2. The background facts in nutshell leading to file this appeal by the Insurance Company are: Respondents 1 to 3 herein are widow and children of Virupa Sanjeeva Reddy who was working as Deputy General Manager in Alloy Nitrides Limited Parcel Service, Hyderabad. He was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. On 05-08-2005 at about 6.00 p.m. he along with his brother-in-law Patil Thimma Reddy, co-brother Sreenivasa Reddy, sister-in-law Usha and her son Venkataditya, daughter Sravya were coming to Nandyal from Kurnool in a car bearing No.AP-Q-5406 to attend birthday function of his daughter. When the car reached near BSNL Tower at Thammarajupalli village, Panyam mandal in Kurnool district, a lorry bearing No.AP-21-W- 2752 came from opposite direction driven in rash and negligence manner and dashed the car. As a result, Sanjeeva Reddy sustained multiple grievous injuries and met with instantaneous death. Patil Thimma Reddy and Venkataditya also met with instantaneous death. Sreenivasa Reddy, Usha and Sravya sustained multiple injuries. A case in Crime No.66 of 2005 under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the driver of the lorry for his rash and negligent driving. 3. Widow and children of Sanjeeva Reddy filed application under Section 166 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. According to them, deceased Sanjeeva Reddy was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of the family. Apart from his employment he was also supervising the agricultural lands and was earning Rs.1,25,000/- per annum. 4. The owner of the offended lorry remained ex parte. The Insurer of the offending lorry filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The insurer took the plea that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The further plea is that the claim made by the claimants is on high side. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-2752 resulting in the death of the deceased by name Virupa Sanjeeva Reddy? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. The claimants examined three witnesses on their behalf as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked four documents as Exs.A-1 to A-4, apart from marking Ex.X-1 certificate showing the age of retirement of the employee in the organization where the deceased was working as 60 years. On behalf of the insurer, two witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 7. The learned Additional District Judge on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-2752 and that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.14,10,000/-. The further finding is that the owner and insurer of the offending lorry are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severely, and thereby allowed the petition for the claimants in part by order dated 17-04-2007. Hence, this appeal by the insurer. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurer and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal has not considered the income tax deduction while arriving at the contribution of the deceased to the family, therefore, committed error in taking the gross earnings of the deceased as his contribution to the family. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SHYAMWATI SHARMA AND OTHERS v. KARAM SINGH AND OTHERS[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that deduction towards income tax surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. 10. Respondents 1 to 3/claimants supported order impugned in the appeal. 11. The only issue that calls for adjudication is: Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper? 12. The deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as on the date of his death. This aspect has been proved by examining PW- 3 Jahaprolu Sowmithri. The Tribunal has taken gross salary as contribution to the family. As held by the Supreme Court in the cited decision the deduction towards income tax surcharge should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. If the income tax deduction is taken into consideration, the net income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.17,500/- and net annual income would have been Rs.2,10,000/-. From the said sum, 1/3rd had to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the family would have been Rs.1,40,000/- per annum. The Deceased was aged about 51 years as on the date of the accident. The proper multiplier as per the decision in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2], case is ‘11’. By applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs.15,40,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.14,10,000/-. In that view of the matter, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J January 29, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2569 of 2007 (JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY) January 29, 2011 [1] 2010 (5) ALD 142 (SC) [2] 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402