HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No. 116 of 2003 J U D G M E N T : The claimants namely, wife, two sons, one daughter and mother, who are five in number are the appellants. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal i.e, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Prl. District Judge, Warangal, this appeal is filed. 2. The deceased was working as Carpenter in Railways. As per Ex.A7 salary certificate issued by the S.D.M.E, the deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. No age certificate of the deceased as per service record is filed. Exs.A2 and A3 Inquest report and post-mortem examination report give his apparent age as 45 years. Therefore, the lower Tribunal selected multiplier at 12 taking his age between 45 and 50 years. The lower Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Finally, the lower Tribunal determined pecuniary compensation @ Rs.5,76,000/- and after adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards incidental expenses fixed total amount of compensation at Rs.5,98,000/-. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company questioning either liability or quantum. 3. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the lower Tribunal failed to add 30% to the salary of the deceased towards future escalations in his salary and that the lower Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 13 instead of 12 and that because there are five dependants on the deceased, personal expenses of the deceased should have been deducted at 1/4 but not at 1/3. The appellants’ counsel based his arguments on Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] on all three points. In so far as future escalations are concerned, in my opinion, it cannot be taken into consideration in this case, because income of the deceased was fixed having regard to his gross salary and not his net salary being received. There is no evidence let in by the claimants as to what is the net salary being received by the deceased from his employer. In these circumstances, when a gross salary is taken as basis for determining income of the deceased, no more addition need to it be made towards future escalation in salary during his balance of service. 4. As per Sarala Varma (1 supra), multiplier for the age upto 45 years, is 14 and for the age between 46 and 50 years is 13. Since the lower Tribunal adopted the multiplier on the basis that the age of the deceased was between 45 and 50 years, I am of the opinion that the multiplier has to be taken in this case at 13 only. Further, the 2nd appellant was aged 24 years by the date of claim, the 3rd appellant was aged 18 years and the 5th appellant was aged about 19 years and none of the children of the deceased is minor. The daughter, who was aged 19 years is stated to be unmarried. Mother, who was aged 68 years, is an old women. All these persons cannot be said to be dependents on the deceased through out his life. Therefore, dependency of the appellants 1 to 5 cannot be held to continue through out the life time of the deceased. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the lower Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 5. Pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.4,000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.6,24,000/-. Apart from that, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.22,000/- towards special damages. Thus, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.6,46,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing compensation amount from Rs.5,98,000/- to Rs.6,46,000/- with proportionate costs. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 01-07-2010 Mjl/* [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121