IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1601 OF 2007 & CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR).No.38379 of 2007 MACMA.No.1601 of 2007 BETWEEN The New India Assurance Company Ltd. …APPELLANT AND T. Anji Reddy and two others. …RESPONDENTS CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR).No.38379 of 2007: BETWEEN T. Anji Reddy and another. …CROSS-OBJECTORS AND N. Venkataramana and New India Assurance Company Ltd. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. P. BHANU PRAKSH Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the insurance company aggrieved by the award dated 30.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.2578 of 2004 by the XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimants therein have filed cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation in this appeal relating to their claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the accidental death of their son on 29.01.2004. 2. The claim petition shows that the deceased was aged 25 years and working in VANZED Pharmaceuticals as a Medical Representative on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- apart from Rs.2,000/- towards traveling allowance. It is alleged that on the date of accident while the deceased was going on his Hero Honda motorcycle the offending lorry bearing No. AP 7 U 9657 came in a high speed and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased resulting in his death on the spot. The police registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2004 with Police Station Sanathnagar against the driver of the offending lorry and the aged parents of the deceased filed the present claim petition. P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of the claimants and while P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the eyewitness, who has seen the accident. The said P.W.2 also corroborated the contents of FIR and charge sheet marked as Exs.A1 and A2 and based on the said evidence the issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. On issue No.2 with regard to compensation, the tribunal kept in mind various decisions of this Court and Supreme Court and assessed the income of the deceased as minimum income under second schedule appended to the Act and after deducting 1/3rd came to hold annual dependency at Rs.10,000/- and keeping in view, his age as 26 years applied multiplier 18 and arrived at compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in aggregate. Questioning the same, the insurance company preferred this appeal and the claimants filed the cross-objections. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that the tribunal has not committed error in not accepting Ex.A3 salary certificate of the deceased, as nobody is examined to prove the said certificate. He submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive inasmuch as error is committed in assessing the annual dependency as well as applying multiplier of 18. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the aged parents have lost their only son, who was working in a pharmaceutical company for the last four years and as such, the minimum salary, as certified under Ex.A3, ought to have been accepted. 6. On consideration of the rival contentions, so far as first issue is concerned, no interference is warranted, as the finding of rash and negligent driving is based on Exs.A1 and A2 coupled with evidence of P.W.2 and there is no contra evidence on the part of any of the respondents. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that Ex.A3 certificate was not established by examining any representative of the employer, who could certify about the salary drawn by the deceased. By itself, Ex.A3 cannot be taken as proof of salary of the deceased. However, since, he was a medical representative, even on conservative estimate, his salary at the minimum would be Rs.15,000/- per annum. The second schedule under the Act is, therefore, rightly followed by the tribunal below and the contribution of Rs.10,000/- towards dependency per annum as arrived at by the tribunal needs no interference. 7. The tribunal below applied multiplier 18 taking into account the age of the deceased as 26 years. However, the age of the deceased is not relevant for applying the multiplier and the age of the younger of the parents has to be taken into consideration as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1] . Since the age of the claimant No.2 i.e. mother is 44 years, relevant multiplier under the second schedule would be 15 and applying the multiplier to the annual dependency the total dependency would work out to Rs.1,50,000/-, as against Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal below. The amounts awarded towards love and affection and funeral expenses granted by the tribunal below at Rs.18,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively also are not in accordance with the prescribed limits under clause (3) of the second schedule of the Act. In view of that, the award requires a marginal modification by reducing the amounts under different heads, as granted by the tribunal below and the reduced amounts under different heads would be as follows: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.1,50,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000 /- ---------------- Total Rs.1,59,000/- ----------------- The appeal, therefore, is allowed in part to the extent of reducing the compensation as shown above and there shall be a modified decree with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The cross- objections are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 2, 2010 DSK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121