THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A No. 1509 of 2005 Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) The claimants, aggrieved by the award dated 08.11.2004, passed in O.P. No.1057 of 2001 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Nalgonda, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’). The brief facts of the case are as follows. The claimants 1 to 4 are the wife, minor son, mother and father of one G. Govinda Rao (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’). On 28.05.2001, while the deceased was driving the Scooter PW.2 C. Suresh Kumar was a pillion rider. When they reached near Muthyalammagudem at 5.30 PM, the offending Car bearing No. AP-9/L-7 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from opposite direction and dashed against the Scooter. The deceased who sustained grievous injuries died on the way to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Car and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the Car was insured. The claimants specific case is that the deceased had acquired specialized qualifications in Plastic moulding and that he worked in Allwyn Watch Limited and subsequently he worked in Riyadh on a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month and that the claimants have lost the only source of income. They claimed total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The second respondent-Insurance Company, which contested the matter, in its counter denied the averments of the claimants with regard to the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car AP-9/L-7? and 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- as claimed by them? On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 and one eye witness Cheluka Suresh Kumar was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the vehicle was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. On issue No.1, the Tribunal, believing the evidence of PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A4, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. On issue No.2, the Tribunal relied on Ex.A13 salary certificate of the deceased issued to him while he was working in Allwyn Company and determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5260/- and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘17’, awarded compensation of Rs.7,15,428/- (Rs.3,507/- x 12 x 17) towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate to the claimants. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.7,45,428/-. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that since the deceased was earning SR2200 i.e., Rs.22,000/- in Indian Currency, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/- per month. It is also his submission that the deceased was an expertise in Plastic Technology and he would have earned more salary in his future life. On the other hand, the learned counsel, appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company, submitted that the deceased was unemployed and he had no income as on the date of his death and therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal itself is on higher side and no further enhancement is required. Since no arguments have been advanced on the issue of negligent driving by the Car driver, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether the claimants are entitled to any enhancement of compensation? As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, Ex.A19 the passport and Ex.A18 driving licence shows that the deceased was aged 33 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute to take the age of the deceased as 33 years as on the date of accident. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, no doubt the deceased had acquired National Trade Certificate in Ex.A5, National Apprenticeship Certificate in Ex.A6, Provisional Certificate in Advanced Training Institute, Hyderabad in Ex.A7, Diploma in Plastic Mould Making in Central Institution of Plastics Engineering and Technology in Ex.A8, Course Completion Certificate in Plastic Mould Making in Ex.A9, Provisional Certificate from CIPET, Madras in Ex.A10, Certificate from National Council for Vocational Training as trained craft instructor in Fitter trade in Ex.A11. But, admittedly he was unemployed on the date of accident. However, Ex.A12 shows that the deceased worked as supervisor in Allwyn Watch Limited from 05.10.1990 to 05.07.1999. Ex.A13 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Allwyn Watch Limited, which shows that the deceased was earning salary of Rs.5,260-36 ps., per month while he was working in Allwyn Watch Limited and he took voluntary retirement from the said Company on 05.07.1999. Prior to that he worked in Honfoong Plastic Industries PTE Limited, Singapore on a monthly salary of Rs.1550/- only. Subsequently, he got a work contract in National Plastics Factory Limited, Riyadh. Though the genuineness of Ex.A17 is in dispute, but however it shows that the deceased was earning SR2200 while he was working in Saudi Arabia. However, Ex.B5 reveals that the deceased was a unemployee on the date of accident. In the above circumstances, the salary earned by the deceased in Saudi Arabia cannot be taken as basis for determining the income of the deceased. Moreover Ex.A13 clearly shows that the deceased was earning only Rs.5260/- per month in Allwyn Company and prior to that he was earning only Rs.1550/- per month as shown in Ex.A14. It may be reasonable to determine the income of the deceased on the basis of his salary paid by Allwyn Company. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5260/- basing on Ex.A13. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, but as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. It was also held that for the age groups of 31 to 35 years the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’. In the light of the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the dependant family members of the deceased are four, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th is deducted from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.3945/- per month (5260 – 1315) and if the multiplier ‘16’ is applied, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.7,57,440/- (Rs.3945 x 12 x 16). Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.7,45,428/- to Rs.7,57,440/-. The enhanced compensation has to be deposited within a period of two months from today, and in default, the enhanced compensation will carry interest at 6% p.a., till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28th July, 2009. Nsr [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 = 2009(3) Supreme 487