THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.NO.16 OF 2006 % 18.06.2010 #Smt. R.Annapoorna and others. ………Petitioner And $M/s. Sharma Transports and another ………Respondents < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy ^Counsel for Respondent No.1 : ^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : ? Cases referred 1. 2009 (6) S.C.C. 121 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 18-06-2010 Between: Smt. R.Annapoorna and others. ………Petitioner And M/s. Sharma Transports and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 01-10-2005 in O.P.No.243 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Mahabubnagar, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. On 23-01-2001, while the deceased was proceeding on his scooter bearing Regn. No.AP22/C-1568, a bus belonging to the 1st respondent bearing Regn. No.KA-01/C/6666 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter, which resulted in fatal injuries, due to which the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital on 25-12-2001. The appellant No.1 (claimant No.1) is the wife of the deceased and appellants 2 to 4 (claimants 2 to 4) are his children. The deceased was a Head Constable at the time of his death. The appellants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claimed compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs. 3. The Tribunal formulated issues as to whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the 1st respondent and whether the appellants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount. 4. On consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. This finding is not assailable in this appeal as there is no challenge to the award by the respondents. 5. In respect of the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,47,600/- towards loss of dependency and together with an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, thus, awarded an amount of Rs.7,75,100/- (rounded to Rs.7,75,000/-) in total. Not satisfied with the quantum, the appellants have filed this appeal. 6. The deceased was admittedly aged 48 years at the time of his death. There is no dispute that he was working as Head Constable at the time of his death. As per Ex.A-8, salary certificate, he was earning gross salary of Rs.8317/- and after deductions, his net salary was Rs.8,167/-. The Tribunal, in view of the age of the deceased at 48, took into consideration the future prospects and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, worked out the income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier ‘13’, total amount towards loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.7,47,600/-. 7. It is not discernable from the judgment of the Tribunal as to how the Tribunal worked out the income at Rs.8,000/- per month. As noted above, as per Ex.A-8, salary certificate, indisputably the deceased was drawing a net salary of Rs.8,167/- per month. Even if the income is rounded at Rs.8,000/-, as done by the Tribunal, and if the career advancement of the appellant is taken into consideration, the monthly income would not remain at Rs.8,000/-. As held by the Apex Court in Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], in respect of the persons aged between 40 and 50 years, 30% has to be added to the income towards future prospects. On this basis, the deceased would have earned Rs.10,400/- per month (i.e. Rs.8,000/- existing salary (+) 30%). The Tribunal rightly applied ‘13’ multiplier. On the basis of this calculation, the total amount of compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,22,400/-. By deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from out of the said amount, the net amount of dependency would come to Rs.10,81,600/-. 8. The Tribunal, while awarding the amount towards loss of dependency, reduced 40% on the ground that the wife of the deceased (appellant No.1) was rehabilitated with compassionate appointment. It may be noted that while awarding compensation under the provisions of the Act which is beneficial legislation, the economic status of the claimants or their other source of livelihood are not relevant for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency. The quantum arrived at on the basis of the contribution that would be made by the deceased is not liable to be deducted on grounds of the claimants own source of income or the status. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the amount as calculated above without any deduction. 9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which require no enhancement. 10. Since the appellants have restricted their claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs only, they are entitled to enhancement for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand only) (Rs.10,00,000/- (-) Rs.7,75,000/-) in this appeal. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. The award dated 01-10-2005 in M.V.O.P.No.243 of 2002 is modified accordingly. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 18th June 2010 Mark the L.R. Copy. B/o. KVR [1] (2009 (6) S.C.C. 121