THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 2188 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble NVR,J) The appeal at the instance of the claimants is directed against the orders dated 23.08.2006 passed in O.P No. 477 of 2004 by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The claimants, who are mother and sister of the deceased - Gunda Madhav Kumar, claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was meritorious candidate earning 22500 pounds per annum as Analyst Programmer in I.T. Vantage U.K. and got the job as programmer analyst in U.S.A. on a monthly salary of 32000 U.S. dollars per annum from March 2003. On 17.02.2003 at about 12.15 P.M., while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 25 F 8626 from Dilsukhnagar to Moosarambagh, a lorry bearing No. AP 15 U 4050 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The respondent-Insurance Company denied the averments made in the petition and put the claimants to strict proof with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased and pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined Smt. Somisetty Jyothi as P.W.2 and U. Srinivas, an eye witness to the accident, as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19 and Ex.X1. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company but Ex.B-1 True copy of the Insurance Policy Certificate was marked. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the said evidence awarded compensation of Rs.15,70,000/-by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Questioning the said award of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal pleading that the deceased was earning 22,500 pounds per annum in U.K. and got a job with a salary of 32000 US dollars in USA and as such, the Tribunal has taken a meagre income of Rs.15,000/- per month and that the monthly income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the offering employment in U.S. to the deceased on a monthly salary of 32000 US dollars and also disbelieved the income at UK as the claimants have not produced any documents with regard to the income earned by him in U.K. However, by taking into consideration of his qualifications fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. As per Ex.A9, the deceased was a holder of Master Decree in Science and he also obtained M.S. Certificate from South Bank University, London as per Ex.A10 and he was issued with the Excellence certificate by NICT’s Learn Soft, Hyderabad and also the certificate issued by IBM Global Services of India and Excellence certificate issued by Micro-Soft. In view of the qualifications and the Excellence certificates, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is too low and we feel it appropriate to take monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the deceased is having 25 years of age as on the date of his death and is having excellent academic qualifications, as per SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ([1]), he is entitled for 50% of the income towards his future prospects. Thus, in all the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.20,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.30,000/- per month as on the date of his death. Since the deceased was unmarried 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the petitioners are entitled to 50% towards loss of dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for applying the proper multiplier. Since the age of the mother of the deceased is 47 years, the proper multiplication that is applicable as per the Sarala Varms’s case (referred to supra) is ‘14’. Thus, the loss of total dependency comes to Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 14=25,20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral expenses and transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, which is in accordance with the Sarala Varma’s case. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.25,20,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = 25,30,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,70,000/- to Rs.25,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation on the enhanced compensation. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 4.8.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 2188 of 2006 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana) 4.8.2011 [1] (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121