IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.475 OF 2009 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. …Appellant A n d Smt.Rabiyaunnissa @ Asiya and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.475 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 in O.P.No.1842 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court), Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of the deceased Adil Ahmed, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.10.2003. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the minor children of the 1st claimant. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased, who was working as a Police Constable, was hit by ambassador car bearing No.AP 13 V 5814 and died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident near Rotary Park Junction, Necklace Road, Hyderabad. 4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the appellant/insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car by its driver. The said finding is not seriously disputed in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs, which was claimed, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal. 7. It is stated that the deceased was aged 37 years and was working as Police Constable and was still having service of more than 18 years. As per the salary certificate Ex.B-4, the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.7,178/- and net salary of Rs.7,158/-. However, having regard to the fact that the deceased was having long career ahead, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Even as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the future prospects of the deceased have to be taken into consideration while estimating the loss of dependency. The action of the Tribunal in taking the salary of the deceased on a higher rate at Rs.10,000/- per month is, therefore, justified, in view of the above decision of the Apex Court. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family came to Rs.80,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of ‘14.04’, the Tribunal has estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.11,23,200/- and by adding Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal estimated the total compensation at Rs.11,45,200/-, but limited the same to Rs.10 lakhs, which was claimed by the respondents. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that there are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th December 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2009 ACJ 1299