IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2006 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Narsaraopet, Auth.Signatory. ..... Appellant AND 1.Vaka Jayalakshmi and 5 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Agastya Sharma Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Mr.K.Ramakoteswara Rao Counsel for Respondent No.6: None Appeared The Court made the following : Judgment: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), arises out of award, dated 17th January, 2006, in M.V.O.P.No.211 of 2004 (for short ‘the OP’), on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short ‘the Tribunal). The National Insurance Company Limited, which is respondent No.2 in the OP, has filed this Appeal, feeling aggrieved by award of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs together with interest @ 7.5% for the death of one Vaka Udayakumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who is the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the OP. At the time of death, the deceased was employed as a Lineman in Central Power Distribution Company Limited, and was, admittedly, drawing a gross salary of Rs.8,490/- per month. As noted above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10 lakhs only, though it has found that the loss of dependency came to Rs.13,20,000/-, since the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs.10 lakhs. At the hearing, Sri S.Agastya Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, advanced three contentions viz., (1) that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the gross salary instead of the net salary of the deceased; (2) that the Tribunal has not restricted the multiplicand viz., the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of the accident, and has taken a higher figure in computing the compensation and; (3) that the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 15 instead of 14. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5- claimants tried to justify the award of the Tribunal. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the record. With regard to the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the issue that arises is, whether gross salary should be taken into consideration, and, if not, what would be the appropriate salary that requires to be considered. In a recent judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Indira Srivastava and others[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reviewing the case law on this aspect, held that the words ‘Net Income’ would ordinarily mean ‘Gross Income minus the Statutory Deductions’. I n Sarala Verma (Smt.) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the Supreme Court held that the gross salary minus deductions of taxes therefrom shall be taken as the loss of income. In the instant case, no evidence is let in by the appellant to show that there were any tax deductions from the gross salary of the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the Tribunal taking Rs.8,490/- as the salary at the time of the death of the deceased. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has taken higher figure in computing the compensation, this aspect is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma (Smt.) (2nd cited supra), wherein it is laid down that where the deceased had a permanent job, and was aged between 40 and 50 years, the addition should be 30% of the salary he was earning at the time of the accident. This ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as the deceased was 42 years and was holding a permanent job, and therefore, addition of 30% to his salary is permissible. On a calculation of this addition, the loss of monthly income would come to Rs.11,137/- as against which the Tribunal has taken the figure of Rs.11,000/-. Therefore, I find no error in the award of the Tribunal on this count. Coming to the third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 14 instead of 15, it is true that in Sarala Verma’s case (2nd cited supra), it is laid down that the multiplier of 14 is relevant if the deceased was 42 years of age. Even if the said multiplier is taken into consideration, the claimants will be entitled to compensation in excess of Rs.10 lakhs. As the Tribunal has restricted the compensation to Rs.10 lakhs, reduced multiplier will not alter the figure of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd February, 2010 lur [1] 2008 (2) SCC 763 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121