IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.2088 of 2005 Between: Gummadi Sugunavathi and others. ..... Appellants AND B.Sreenivasan and others. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.2088 of 2005 JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimants. They are aggrieved by the award in O.P. No.175 of 2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle passed on 03.05.2005 partly allowing the appellants’ O.P. Gummadi Viswanatha(deceased), aged 30 years, was working as lower division clerk in Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. His wife, a minor son and his mother were depending on him. On 22.06.2003 at about 3.00 P.M he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP- 03-H-5475, which was insured with the fourth respondent herein. A tempo with No.TN39-B-6994 belonging to first respondent insured with second respondent dashed against the motor cycle. Viswanath received fatal injuries and died at Government Hospital, Punganur while undergoing treatment. Crime No.96 of 2003, under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), was registered by P.S. Punganur. His mother, wife and minor child filed O.P.No.175 of 2003 claiming Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) as compensation. The O.P was opposed by the insurer denying the allegations of negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo and also disputing the compensation claimed. The wife of the deceased gave evidence as P.W.1 and an eye witness to the accident deposed as P.W.2. Two other witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. Owner of the tempo was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. Besides this, Ex.X-1 was also marked. On consideration of evidence though the learned Tribunal relied on Ex.A-5 salary certificate, came to the conclusion that the net salary should be considered for the purpose of assessing compensation. Accordingly, relying on Ex.X-1 (establishment register) determined monthly contribution to the family is Rs.2,018/- and considering the age as 30 years, the lower Tribunal applied multiplier 17 as per second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.4,41,672/-, which includes loss of estate and loss of consortium. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relies on Ex.X-1 and A-5 and contends that the lower Tribunal committed an error in fixing the multiplicand. He relies on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] and submits that the gross income ought to be taken duly providing for future prospects while calculating the total income of the deceased. Per contra, the learned counsel for the United Insurance Company Limited submits that while calculating the total income of the salaried employees, the income tax should be deducted from the actual salary. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence available on record. After perusing Ex.A-5 and Ex.X-1, we are convinced that the learned Tribunal committed an error in fixing the total contribution of the deceased to the family. Therefore, we set aside the finding and proceed to determine the compensation. Ex.A-5, which is the certificate issued by Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office of Southern Power Distribution Company Limited would show that in addition to pay of Rs.6,795/- per month, the deceased was also getting dearness allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance and cycle allowance. He was drawing a gross salary of Rs.8,091/-. The lower Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in Madhukuri Raghu Ram Murthy v. Koyyada Sakku Bai[2] took into consideration the net income. This, in our considered opinion, is not correct. In Sarla Verma (supra), Supreme Court held that the gross income of the deceased salary of an employee was considered while determining the monthly income. Indeed, a perusal of Ex.A-5 also would show that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.8,091.50 Ps., on the relevant date. Considering the same, the multiplicand would come to Rs.64,720/-(8,090 X 12 – 1/3 = 64,720/-) after deducting one-third as laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas[3]. I n Sarla Verma (supra), while indicating multipliers in Susamma Thomas (supra), Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra[4] and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie[5] as well as the multipliers given in second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme Court laid down that the multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra (supra) as clarified in Charlie (supra) should be used for determining the loss of dependency. As per the multiplier scale in Charlie (supra) the relevant multiplier is 16 if the age of deceased is between 31 to 35 years. Applying the same, the appellant should be entitled to Rs.10,35,520/-. In addition to this, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate have to be awarded. The appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,65,520/-, rounded of Rs.10,66,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and sixty six thousand only). We also deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum from the date of disposal of the O.P. Accordingly, we allow the appeal as indicated above without any order as to costs. ______________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J OCTOBER 29, 2009 KSH [1] 2009(3) Supreme 487 : 2009(3) ALD (SC) 83 [2] 2004(6) ALT 727 [3] (1994) 2 SCC 176 : AIR 1994 SC 1631 [4] (1996) 4 SCC 362 [5] (2005)10 SCC 720