THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1774 of 1999: AND C.M.A.No. 1584 of 1999: Date:27.11.2009 C.M.A.No. 1774 of 1999: Between: Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi and two others …Appellants And Mr.C.Narayan Swamy and another …Respondents C.M.A.No. 1584 of 1999: Between: Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi …Appellants And Mr.C.Narayan Swamy and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1774 of 1999: AND C.M.A.No. 1584 of 1999: COMMON JUDGMENT: CMA 1774 of 1999 arises out of the order and decree dated 24.12.1998 passed in O.P.No.1337 of 1996 and whereas C.M.A.No.1584 of 1999 arises out of the order and decree dated 24.12.1998 in O.P.No.1338 of 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Tribunal rendered common order in both the O.Ps. since they arise out of one and the same accident. Thus, these two appeals are also being disposed of by the following common judgment. 3. CMA 1774 of 1999 relates to the claim made by the legal representatives of the deceased P.Sudershanam who died in a motor vehicle accident. As against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- made by the appellants, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. The appeal is filed only seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Whereas CMA No.1584 of 1999 relates to the claim made by the appellant/injured claimant. The learned Tribunal considering the claim of the appellant for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- and this appeal is also filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. The only question requires determination in both the appeals is whether there is any valid ground to enhance the compensation, if so, to what relief? 7 . CMA No.1774 of 1999: In this case, the deceased- P.Sudershanam was working as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department and his gross salary as per Ex.A-6 was Rs.9,519/- per month. The appellants also claimed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by attending to the consultancy work in his private capacity, but the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that absolutely no evidence either oral or documentary adduced by the claimants in proof of the said fact. The learned Tribunal basing on the contents of Ex.A.1- F.I.R. which was lodged by the son of the deceased and also the age mentioned in the post mortem report Ex.A-4 considered the age of the deceased as 48 years for the purpose of computing compensation. However, in my view, the learned Tribunal went wrong in so taking the age of the deceased when it is clearly mentioned as 46 years in Ex.A.5 service book of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 46 years. The Tribunal without mentioning the net salary of the deceased, directly mentioned the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as the contribution of the deceased towards his family. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants the net salary of the deceased is Rs.7,500/- per month and if 1/3rd is deducted out of the same, the contribution towards his family comes to Rs.5,000/- per month or Rs.60,000/- per annum and the Tribunal did not therefore commit any mistake on the said aspect. However, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased for the purpose of arriving at the income of the deceased. As per the decision in Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another which was rendered to set at rest conflicting views relating to selection of multiplier, the future prospects and the other factors which are relevant in computing compensation it was held that where the deceased was between 40 and 50 years, additions would be 30% towards future prospects. In the instant case, after the addition of 30%, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.6,500/- per month. Further, as per the judgment in Sarala Verma’s case, the multiplier relevant in the present case is 13, but not 9, which was selected by the learned Tribunal. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with 13 which comes to Rs.6,500/- x 13 = Rs.8,45,000/-. In addition to this, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. This apart, the first appellant who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,65,000/-. Hence, the enhancement would be Rs.8,65,000/- minus Rs.5,60,000/- = Rs.2,05,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be exclusively be taken by the first appellant who is the widow of the deceased. The enhanced compensation shall bear interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petiton till realization. With the above enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, C.M.A.No.177 of 1999 is partly allowed without any order as to costs. 8. CMA No.1584 of 1999: The appellant in the present case who is the wife of the deceased T.Sudershanam is the injured claimant before the Tribunal. She seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. In the claim petition, she stated that she received head injury and also received injuries to hands in the accident and she was treated in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. She filed before the Tribunal Ex.A.12 OP chit, Ex.A-13 discharge card and Ex.A-14 bunch of medical bills. The learned Tribunal also considered Ex.A-13 showing that the appellant was treated in Kamineni Hospital from 29.11.96 to 17.12.96. The Tribunal further considered that basing on Ex.A-14 medical bills, the expenditure was only Rs.4,258/-. Absolutely there was no evidence before the Tribunal below as to the nature of the injury sustained by the appellant. The mere fact that the appellant was treated in Kamineni Hospital for a period of 10 days, does not indicate that she sustained a grievous injury. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and I see no material on record to enhance the compensation. Accordingly, the C.M.A.No. 1584 of 1999 is dismissed without costs confirming the award passed by the Tribunal below. ____________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:27.11.2009. CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1774 of 1999: AND C.M.A.No. 1584 of 1999: Date:27.11.2009