IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3575 OF 2011 Between: Vajroji Chandra Mouli and another ..... APPELLANTS AND N. Rajaiah and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3575 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the Award in O.P.No.322 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy. A claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was made by the appellants consequent on the death of their son Venugopala Chary (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident. On 25.05.2002, when the deceased was said to be going on a motor vehicle a DCM van bearing No. AP 15 V 5412 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, as a result of which the deceased received injuries and died. The deceased was said to be an employee in a private company having studied ITI and drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The first respondent is the owner of the DCM Van and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. The first respondent denied the liability and pleaded that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the Scooter and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The second respondent, on the other hand, denied that a valid policy was issued covering the risk of the first respondent at the time of accident and pleaded that the appellants are put to strict proof of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the DCM Van. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has fixed compensation at Rs.1,80,560/-. Being aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? Point: There is no dispute about the cause of death of the deceased in the accident. The Award was not challenged by the Insurance Company. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the Salary Certificate shows that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4,200/- per month and the evidence of PW.3 supports the same, the Tribunal has taken the salary as Rs.2,100/- per month only, which is not reasonable. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.3, the deceased was said to have worked with their company from 17.06.1999 to 24.05.2002. The salary was, at the beginning, a sum of Rs.2,300/- per month and it was Rs.4,200/- per month by the date of the incident. Ex.A7 is the Salary Certificate. The lower Tribunal was not inclined to accept the said evidence since there is no proof of payment of salary of Rs.4,200/- per month. The deceased was a technically qualified person and therefore, his income can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the deceased is unmarried, half of the salary has to be deducted and the contribution comes to Rs.18,000/- per year. Since the age of mother of the deceased is said to be 45 years, multiplier 14 is to be applied as per decision in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. The total dependency comes to Rs.18,000/- x 14 = Rs.2,52,000/-. Apart from that, the appellants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Totally, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- rounded to Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty five thousand only). The interest shall be at 6% per annum on the total amount of compensation. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J December 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3575 OF 2011 December 27, 2011 [1] (1996) 4 SCC 362