THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2558 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 06.01.2005 in O.P.No.599 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal questioning the quantum of compensation. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased J.Gopaiah in a motor accident, who was said to be working as a helper in South Central Railways. It was alleged that on 7/8.05.2002 at about 1.00 a.m. when the deceased was coming in the auto on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto, dashed against another auto and the deceased received multiple injuries and died. He was said to be drawing a salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte and the 3rd and 4th respondents filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of accident, liability of the insurance company and the petitioners are put to strict proof of their dependency on the deceased. After considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-13, the lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,69,781/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute and the insurance company has not challenged the award. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the lower Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,202/- relying upon Ex.A-5, which is not correct. According to him, the deceased was drawing a net salary of Rs.5,515/- and after deductions he was drawing a salary of Rs.4,906/- as per Ex.A-4 and, therefore, the lower Tribunal should have taken into consideration the said sum of Rs.4,906/- after considering the deductions. Evidently, Ex.A-5 is the service certificate, which only shows the basic salary of the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, I feel, the salary of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.4,900/- and one-third has to be deducted and the contribution comes to Rs.3,266/-. But as can be seen from Exs.A-2 and A-10, the lower Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as ‘42’ and applied the multiplier ‘13’. But, however, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the multiplier that has to be applied is ‘14’. Therefore, the petitioners will be entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,48,799/- (Rs.3,266.66 X 12 X 14). The petitioners will be entitled for non-pecuniary damages at Rs.10,000/- and the 1st petitioner is entitled for consortium at Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners will be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,68,799/- rounded off to Rs.5,70,000/- (Rupees five lakhs sixty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety nine only). The interest rate shall be at 6% per annum on the total amount of compensation. The apportionment of compensation shall be as done by the lower Tribunal. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 31-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2558 of 2011 DATE: 31-10-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121