THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 4510 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 Between: Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And Dodla Papi Reddy and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 4510 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.06.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company urging that the Tribunal below erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month without any basis and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal below is also not according to the Rules. Learned counsel further urged that the findings of the Tribunal is that there is no proof of income and, therefore, the notional income of the deceased was taken into consideration as per II-Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) and, therefore, the notional income was fixed as Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is further urged that the deceased being a bachelor, half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and that the mother of the deceased is aged 45 years and as per the case in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] the correct multiplier applicable is ‘13’. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while replying the arguments urged that as per SARLA VERMA’s case the correct multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased is ‘13’. She further urged that the income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal below is justified in all aspects. Now the point for consideration is whether the award and decree of the lower Court is sustainable? As seen from the order and decree of the lower Court, the claimants filed petition claiming compensation of 2,50,000/- for the death of D.Raja Reddy @ Ramachandra Reddy, aged 24 years. The deceased was unmarried as on the date of accident. The lower Court while determining the compensation held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was doing milk business and earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. However, while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, the lower Court arrived at Rs.2,400/- as income of the deceased per month. As seen from the impugned order, the lower Court deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. As per the principle in SARLA VERMA’s case the deceased being bachelor, half of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the claim petition and the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner was unmarried. In cases where the deceased is unmarried, the age of his mother has to be taken into consideration applying the multiplier. In the instant case, the age of the mother is mentioned as 45 years in the claim petition. The same was not disputed. The appropriate multiplier for the age of 45 years as per multiplier table provided in SARLA VERMA’s case is ‘13’. In view of the above finding of the Tribunal, it can be taken the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.2,400/-. After deducting ½ (half) towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the fixed compensation to be awarded to the claimants for the death of deceased by applying multiplier ‘13’ on the age of 45 years as per SARLA VERMA’s case. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,87,200/- (Rs.1,200/- X 12 X 13). An amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted by the lower Court towards love and affection and the same is granted. In total an amount of Rs.2,02,200/- (Rupees two lakhs two thousand and two hundred only) is granted as compensation against the award granted by the Tribunal at Rs.2,15,700/-. With the above modification, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 16-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 4510 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121