HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2091 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.573 of 2000 dated 31-01-2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimants are wife, children and parents respectively of the deceased Potnuru Bhaskara Rao, who died in the accident on the midnight of 11/12-08-2000 due to collision of his motorcycle bearing No.AP31 – Q – 8597 with the parked lorry (tanker) bearing No.AP31 – T – 4949, near Indira Zoological Park, Visakhapatnam. The driver and owner of the above lorry and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively and insurer of the above motorcycle is respondent No.4 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on the intervening night of 11/12-08-2000, while the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP31 – Q - 8597 along with his brother-in-law (pillion rider) from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram, near Indira Zoological Park, Visakhapatnam, at about 12-00 AM, since the lorry (tanker) bearing No.AP31 – T 4929 was parked on the highway without any signal lamps or caution to the vehicles, deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, dashed against that lorry, as a result, deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them in KGH, Visakhapatnam. 5. Respondent No.3, the insurer of the above lorry, filed counter denying the case of the claimants and the same was adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of that lorry. 6. Respondent No.4, insurer of the motorcycle, also filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “i) Whether the accident and the death of deceased Potnuru Bhaskararao, are due to rash and negligent act of R.1 driver of the lorry (tanker) bearing No.AP 31 T 4949 by violating the traffic rules ? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so from which of the respondents ? iii) To that relief ?” 8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the insurer of the lorry (respondent No.3), RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. On behalf of the insurer of the motorcycle, RW.2 was examined and Ex.B-2 was marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, though the Tribunal held that claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,06,776/- payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, observing that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well in occurrence of the accident, deducted 20% out of the total compensation towards contributory negligence of the deceased and accordingly held that claimants are entitled to only 80% of the compensation i.e., Rs.4,85,420/- payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and also questioning the contributory negligence. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that since the lorry was parked on the highway without any signals and caution to the vehiculars, accident took place, as such, observation of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well and deducting 20% out of the total compensation towards contributory negligence of the deceased is erroneous and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. 11. Since none of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 12. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is inadequate ? 13. Ex.A-7, salary certificate of the deceased, shows that deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. He was working in Diesel Loco Shed, Railways as a Technician, Grade – III. Ex.A-10 is service particulars of the deceased and it reveals that his date of birth was 01-04-1952. Thus, as on the date of his death, deceased was aged 48 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1], for the age group of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ and as the dependants on the deceased are more than four, the amount deductible towards personal expenses of the deceased is only 1/4th but not 1/3rd. Further, since the deceased was left with another 12 years of service by the date of his death, his salary that was taken into consideration for computing the compensation by the Tribunal was obviously before the latest pay revision and as per he latest pay revision, there would have been substantial enhancement in his monthly salary by the time of his retirement. Even assuming that salary of the deceased would be increased by 30%, his monthly salary can be safely taken at Rs.8,000/- per annum. 14. Accordingly, out of the total monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x ¼) per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum and when the same is capitalized with multiplier ‘13’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,36,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 13). Towards loss of consortium, love and affection and loss of estate etc., a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be easily awarded. Thus, claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,61,000/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.9,50,000/-. Out of that if 20% of the amount is deducted towards contributory negligence of the deceased, it comes to Rs.7,60,000/-. Accordingly, I hold that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees seven lakh sixty thousand only). 15. Thus, the compensation of Rs.4,85,420/- awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,60,000/-. Claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. All the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation in the same ratio as fixed by the Tribunal. Each of them can withdraw 25% of the enhanced compensation as and when deposited and the balance three (3) years thereafter with accrued interest. 16. With the above directions and observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 24, 2010. PV [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121