THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2950 of 2005 and Cross Objections (SR)No.8381 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: The M.A.C.M.A. and the Cross Objections filed by the insurance company and the claimants respectively are directed against the order dated 08.08.2005 in O.P No.665 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), for decreasing and enhancing the compensation respectively. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. Originally, the first claimant filed the O.P. for the injuries sustained by him, but during the pendency of the O.P., he died and his legal representatives - mother, brothers and sisters were brought on record as claimants. The O.P. was filed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of K. R. Siva Kumar (first claimant) (for short ‘the deceased’) in an accident that occurred on 30.11.2001. On that day, while he was going on his Suzuki motor cycle from his house to college and when he reached near Monda market area, a lorry bearing No.AAG 70 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, came with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased in the opposite direction, as a result of which the deceased fell on the road and he was taken to Appollo Hospital by the passersby. The doctors diagnosed that the deceased sustained head injury and undergone several operations during the course of treatment. After filing of the claim petition, he died. The deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a part time lecturer. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-28 – certified copies of F.I.R., charge sheet, injury certificate, death certificate, discharge summary, medical reports, medical bills, service certificates, experience certificate study certificate, LLB marks memorandum, bona fide certificate, conduct certificate, sports certificate, photograph, photocopy of CT scan and doctor’s certificate etc. On behalf of the insurance company, no witness was examined, but Ex.B-1 - insurance policy was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that due to the accident only the deceased died and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. Since the deceased was working as a temporary lecturer, the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per month and since the deceased was a bachelor, his mother’s age was taken for calculation. Since her age as stated in her chief-examination and not denied by the other side is 46 years, the Tribunal has taken multiplier ‘12’. Accordingly, his annual income was calculated at Rs.60,000/- (5000 x 12) and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, it was arrived at Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.4,80,000/- (40000 x 12). Apart from this amount, the Tribunal awarded further sums of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.1,72,000/- towards medical expenses. In all the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,77,000/- towards compensation with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The learned counsel for the insurance company (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.) contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as indicated in II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of any evidence with regard to the salary claimed. The learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at lower side which needs to be enhanced and that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month since he was giving tuitions apart from working as a lecturer and that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is at lower side. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal considered all the aspects of the matter in a detailed manner. In view of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors, the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal is incorrect and the correct multiplier is ‘13’ since the age of the deceased’s mother was 46 years at the time of the accident. Considering the profession of the deceased being lecturer and also giving tuitions, his monthly income, at least, can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. Per annum his income comes to Rs.72,000/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, half of his salary shall be deducted towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma (1 supra). By applying the multiplier ‘13’ and half of his annual income at Rs.36,000/-, loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.4,68,000/- (36000 X 13). The other sums awarded by the Tribunal need not be disturbed, except Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation comes to Rs.6,60,000/- (468000 + 10000 + 5000 + 5000 + 172000). Thus, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,77,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with or modify the award of the Tribunal since the new calculation also gave the approximate amount as granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed in all aspects and both M.A.C.M.A. and the Cross Objections are dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129