IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 2389 of 1998 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 793 of 1996 dated 01/06/1998 on the file of the court of thePrincipal District Judge, R.R.Dist at L.B.Nagar) Between: 1 Mohd. Sabir Ali S/o. Mohd. Jamal, R/o. H.No. 2-108, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, R.R. Dt. 2 Shainaz W/o. MOhd. Sabbir Ali, R/o. H.No. 2-108, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, R.R. Dt. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Mohd. Tajuddin S/o. Mohd. Ismail Sab, R/o. 5-6-247 Agapura Hyderabad. 2 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Divisional Manager DO-III, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.BADRI.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA FOR RR2 The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2389 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The parents of the deceased, in appeal, are the claimants before the Tribunal below. They sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of life of their son aged 19 years in the motor vehicle accident dated 07.09.1996. In the said accident the offending lorry bearing No. AP 9 T 6294 came at a high speed and dashed against the deceased on account of which the deceased suffered serious fatal injuries. 2. The claim for compensation being O.P.No.793 of 1996 was filed by the appellants, who are parents of the deceased, claiming that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent, Insurance Company, and the said vehicle was driven in a very rash and negligent manner. They also claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month and produced Ex.A9-Salary certificate in support of the same. The Tribunal below on evidence came to a conclusion that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and Ex.B-1- Insurance policy fully covered the risks arising out of use of the said offending lorry. On the aspect of quantum of compensation, however, the Tribunal below assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.700/- per month as a labourer and keeping in view his personal expenses, assessed his monthly contribution to the family at Rs.450/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 12, assessed the dependency at Rs.59,400/-. To the said amount conventional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate was added and in aggregate, compensation of Rs.74,400/- was granted. Questioning the disallowed claim, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of quantum by the Tribunal below is not justified, in view of the fact that claimants had produced Ex.A9-salary certificate in proof of the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. It is also contended that the contribution cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total earnings of the deceased and an appropriate multiplier of 18 had to be applied keeping in view the fact that the deceased was very young. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment on the ground that Ex.A9-Salary Certificate is not proved as nobody is examined in support thereof. Secondly, the earnings of the deceased are not otherwise proved by in any other manner. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and points out that even after assessing the earnings of the deceased, 50% thereof has to be deducted for personal expenses and keeping in view the age of the younger of the parents, multiplier cannot exceed 12. 5. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether the appeal deserves further enhancement as contended by the learned counsel. To the extent of proof of the earnings of the deceased are concerned except Ex.A9, there is no other evidence. The employer in particular is not examined nor any other person connected with Ex.A9 is examined. Mere production of salary certificate cannot establish the earnings of the deceased. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent that Ex.A9 cannot be taken into consideration and in which case the earnings of the deceased has to be assessed as a labourer. While the Tribunal below had assessed him as such and quantified his earning at Rs.700/- per month, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the substantial difference between the monthly earnings as claimed by the claimants as Rs.2,500/- per month and the monthly earning as assessed by the Tribunal below as Rs.700/- per month, it would be safe to take the earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. The same would work out to Rs.18,000/- per year and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, his contribution per year would work out to Rs.9,000/-. Applying multiplier ‘12’, keeping in view of the age of the younger of the parents, the total dependency would work out to Rs.1,08,000/-. The amount of Rs.59,400/- granted by the Tribunal below, therefore, deserves enhancement to that extent without disturbing the rest of the award of the Tribunal below given. 6. The appeal, therefore, shall stand allowed in part by modifying the award of the Tribunal below by granting compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- as against Rs.59,400/- granted thereunder. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum following the decision in Sarala Varma’s case (1 supra). Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.08.2009 MD [1] 2009 1 DECISIONS TODAY 292