IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.110 OF 2009 Between: Methani Parvathi and three others. …Appellants A n d M.Venkata Subaaiah and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.110 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 17- 03-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II-Additional District Judge), Kadapa at Proddatur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. Perused the records. 3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.16 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Naga Maheswar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.06.2005. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the sons and the 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was returning from Kadapa on his motor cycle and that near Harsha Public School, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP 9X 4012, belonging to the first respondent herein, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur and from there he was taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where he died. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 32 years and was working as Physical Education Teacher in Z.P.High School, Yerraguntla on a monthly salary of Rs.6,038/-. 4. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle and the second respondent-insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent, but Ex.B-1 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. The said finding is not challenged as no appeal is filed by the respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month even though the salary certificate Ex.A-8 shows that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.6,038/- and net salary of Rs.5,488/-. 8. As seen from Ex.A-8, after deducting a total sum of Rs.550/- i.e., Rs.500/- towards provident fund, a sum of Rs.30/- towards group insurance scheme and a sum of Rs.20/- towards professional tax, the deceased was drawing a net salary of Rs.5,488/-. The Tribunal has taken into account only the basic pay of Rs.3,950/- by rounding off the same to Rs.4,000/-, but failed to take into account the sum of Rs.1,357/- towards dearness allowance drawn by the deceased, Rs.390/- towards house rent allowance and Rs.336/- towards interim relief. The said amounts are also part of the income earned by the deceased and the Tribunal ought to have taken the same into consideration while estimating the loss of dependency. Thus, as seen from Ex.A-8 salary certificate, the deceased who was working as Physical Education Teacher in Z.P. High School was earning a net salary of Rs.5,488/-. After deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,659/- and applying the suitable multiplier ‘17’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,46,436/- (Rs.3,659/- X 17 X 12). The claimants are held entitled for the other amounts of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.9,500/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, as awarded by the Tribunal as no appeal is preferred by the respondent. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,05,936/- with interest at 7,5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th July, 2011 Lrkm