IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.505 of 2008 Between: P Satyamma & others … Appellants And: K. Pulla Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.505 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2007 in MVOP No.1085 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said claim application filed by the petitioners under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,27,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the petitioners and also the respondents 4 to 6. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-APSRTC. None appears for the respondents 1, 4 to 6. Perused the record. 3. The first claimant is the mother, claimants 2 and 3 are minor sisters, 4th respondent is the wife and respondents 5 and 6 are the minor son and daughter of the deceased P.Narasimha, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.02.2005. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased and another K Ramachandra, working as drivers in APSRTC, were on duty in the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3410 and they left Picket Depot at 7 p.m. to go to Bangalore, and that the deceased drove the vehicle up to Anantapur and thereafter was resting on the berth behind the driver seat and the other driver Ramachandra was driving the vehicle and that on account of the rash and negligent driving, he dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 04 U 8999 coming in the opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner near Somandepalle, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by its drivers. A case in Cr.No.26 of 2005 was registered against the drivers of both the vehicles. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.9000/- per month and the claimants and the respondents 4 to 6 who are the dependents of the deceased, have lost their source of livelihood. 4. The first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer and 3rd respondent-APSRTC filed counters, opposing the claim and denying their liability. During the enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW.1-driver of APSRTC was examined and Ex.B.1 Policy copy was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurer. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by their respective drivers. The Tribunal further awarded total compensation of Rs.4,27,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and the liability was apportioned among the insurer and APSRTC equally. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Admittedly, no appeal is filed either by the insurer or APSRTC and hence, the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles by its drivers, has become final. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the net salary of the deceased into consideration in a sum of Rs.3527/- for the purpose of estimating the loss of dependency. Ex.A.5 pay slip of the deceased would show that he was drawing gross emoluments of Rs.7210.50, out of them, total deductions are in a sum of Rs.3684/- and the net take home salary is Rs.3527/-. It is well settled that only such of those deductions, which are in the nature of compulsory payments like towards professional tax, income tax, loan recovery etc. alone can be eschewed from consideration, but not those deductions, which are in the nature of deferred payments by way of deductions towards GPF, LIC or other saving schemes. As seen from Ex.A.5 a sum of Rs.632/- is deducted towards PF, Rs.1552/- towards CCS, Rs.100/- towards RBS, Rs.371/- towards LIC, Rs.50/- towards CTD, which are all in the nature of deferred payments. The said amounts are being deducted towards subscription of various saving schemes for the future benefit of the employee instead of paying those amounts in cash. The other amounts, which are towards payment of professional tax, income tax or loan recovery, are not liable to be taken into consideration as part of the income of the employee for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. Thus the amount of Rs.60/- towards SBT, Rs.80/- towards professional tax, Rs.150/- towards festival advance, Rs.544/- towards CCS education loan and Rs.145/- towards rent, in all Rs.989/- are held liable to be excluded from the income. Thus after excluding those amounts, which are liable to be deducted towards tax and other dues, the net emoluments of the deceased would come to Rs.6221/- (Rs.7210/- - Rs.989/-). 6. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of his death. As per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier will be ‘15’. As the deceased has left behind six dependents, the claimants 1 to 3 and respondents 4 to 6, only 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the above decision. Deducting the same, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4666/- (Rs.6221– Rs.1555/- being 1/4th) per month. As per the above decision, the deceased being salaried employee, aged 38 years, 50% of the net income is to be taken into account towards future prospects for the purpose of assessing the quantum of compensation towards loss of dependency (i.e., Rs.4666/- + Rs.2333/- being 50%) would be Rs.6999/- per month, which comes to Rs.83,988/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.12,59,820/- (Rs.83,988/- x 15). As per the above decision, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and 4th respondent-widow is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,79,820/- but the compensation is restricted to Rs.12,00,000/- which is claimed by the claimants, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition and at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants and respondents 4 to 6 in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-insurer and 3rd respondent-APSRTC are held liable for payment of the enhanced amount in equal shares with proportionate interest and costs. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.09.2011 bss