THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 Dated: 23-12-2010 M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 Between: B.Shanthamma and others. ………..Appellants and G.Venkatesham and another. …………Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 The National Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Officer, Panjagutta, Hydeabad. ………..Appellant and B.Shanthamma and others. …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 is filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 is filed by the insurer against the same award dated 25-06-2004, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.141 of 2000, filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one B.Kistaiah (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident when he was proceeding in an auto bearing Regn. No.AP 28U 1399 from Vikarabad towards Marpally village, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which, the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Marpally, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 2. Since both the appeals arose out of the same award and the parties are also same in both the appeals, they are being taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Before the Tribunal, 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in O.P.No.141 of 2000. 5. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the claimants as P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents of Exs.A-1 to A- 7, awarded Rs.3,89,869/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the claimants were awarded a total sum of Rs.4,01,869/- (Rs.3,89,869/- (+) Rs.10,000/- (+) Rs.2,000/-). Not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, while the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 seeking enhancement of compensation, the insurer filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned standing counsel for the insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 7. Learned standing counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal erred in granting higher compensation towards loss of dependency though the claimants failed to made out their case. He further contended that the Tribunal without considering the validity of driving licence as shown in Ex.B-2 allowed the claim petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimants. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal while granting compensation towards loss of dependency, ought to have considered salary of the deceased drawing at the time of accident. The Tribunal also failed to observe that the deceased was a permanent employee working as an operator in Sericulture office and getting salary of Rs.4,673/- per month. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, since it is a permanent job, 30% of the salary can be added to the actual salary. Therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the deceased died. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses., which, in my considered opinion, may not be interfered with and the same are confirmed. 10. So far as the award of Rs.3,89,869/- towards loss of dependency, granted by the Tribunal, is concerned, the Tribunal ought to consider Ex.A-6, salary certificate, wherein the income of the appellant shows as Rs.4663/- per month. As contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, since the deceased was a permanent employee, 30% of enhancement of salary can be added to his actual salary. If it is added, his monthly salary would come to Rs.6062/- (4673/- (+) 1399/-). Out of the income of the deceased, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure. Then, the contribution to the family members comes to Rs.4042/- (6062/- (-) 2020/-). Further, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘14’. Then the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.6,79,056/- (4042/- (X) 12 (X) 14) towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards loss of estate. In my considered view, the claimants can also be granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,01,056/- (Rs.6,79,056/- (+) 10,000/- (+) 10,000 (+) 2,000). However, since the claimants have restricted their claim to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, they are granted only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards total compensation. 11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004 filed by the claimants is allowed and M.A.C.M.A.No.1654 of 2005 filed by the insurer is dismissed. The claimants, who are the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.4464 of 2004, are entitled to an amount of Rs.98,131/- (Rs.5,00,000/- (-) Rs.4,01,869/-) as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.141 of 2000, dated 25-06-2004, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 23, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr [1] AIR 2009 S.C. 3104