THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1399 of 2007 and 1495 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.732 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum - I Additional District Judge, Kurnool on 28.02.2007. The M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2007 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The M.A.C.M.A.No.1495 of 2008 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants, who are the mother, wife and children of the deceased S.Hanumantha Rayudu, have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a Motor vehicle accident. According to them on 11.08.2004 at about 10.00 A.M the deceased S.Hanumantha Rayudu left Kurnool for Dhone in his Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 21G 8702 and when it reached Udumulapadu at about 11.30 A.M a tractor bearing No.AP 21V 8713 came with high speed on wrong side in their opposite direction and dashed the car, as a result of which the front tyre of the car was bursted and the same was turned turtle and the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Dhone and from there he was shifted to Gowri Gopal Appollo Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants the deceased aged 49 years and he is working as employee in Rallies Indian Limited, Mumbai and getting salary of Rs.21,775/- per month as Senior Sales Officer, besides the salary he is getting Rs.1,00,000/- P.A. approximately towards incentives, Rs.30,000/- by way of performance management system, Rs.10,000/- towards leave fare allowances and medical expenses/ reimbursement. He would have become a Area Manager within short period had he been alive, he would have drawn salary of Rs.30,000/- per month along with other benefits. Hence the claim. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company opposed the said claim by filing counter and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the age, employment and income of the deceased and also pleaded that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car, as such they are not liable to pay the compensation and also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident did occur due to the collision between car bearing No.AP 21G 8702 and Tractor bearing No.AP 21V 8713, resulting into the death of S.Hanumantha Rayudu? (2) Whether the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No.AP 21V 8713, by its driver? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? (4) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. No oral evidence and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurance company. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not questioned by the Insurance Company in their appeal. With regard to awarding quantum of compensation under issue No.3, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.14,16,000/- by taking the net salary of the deceased as Rs.15,952/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier ‘11’ arrived at Rs.14,03,820/- towards loss of dependency, and also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium to the 2nd petitioner, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Questioning the said amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance Company has filed the appeal and the claimants have filed the appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation. The Standing Counsel for the insurance company has pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in taking the net income of the deceased as Rs.15,952/- and applied the higher multiplier and thereby arrived at the higher amount towards loss of dependency. The claimants’ counsel on the other hand has pleaded that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.21,775 and the income tax is only liable to be deducted from the said gross salary. Since the deceased is aged about 49 years as on the date of his death, 30% of the salary has to be taken into consideration towards his future prospects and by applying the multiplier ‘13’ the Tribunal ought to have granted the amount of compensation as claimed by them. P.W.3 has stated that the deceased was drawing Rs.14,450/- as basic pay and 50% of the said basic as H.R.A. and Rs.100/- per month towards educational allowance and drawing total salary of Rs.21,775/- . As per Exs.A.7 and A.8 – Form No.16 the deceased was paying Rs.2,598/- towards income tax and the same is liable to be deducted from the gross salary of Rs.21,775/-. After deducting income tax, the monthly salary of the deceased comes to (Rs.21,775 – Rs.2,598) Rs.19,177/-. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,30,124/-. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” 30% has to be added to the said salary towards future prospects if the deceased is having permanent employment. In the present case, the deceased is working in private company and there is no material on record to show that the said employment is permanent in nature. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. Since the claimants are 4 in number, as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased comes to (Rs.2,30,124 – Rs.57,531/-) Rs.1,72,593/-. Since the deceased is aged 49 years as on the date of his death, as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) for the age group of 46 to 50 years the proper multiplier is ‘13’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the claimants comes to (Rs.1,72,593 X 13) Rs.22,43,709/-. As per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the 2nd petitioner being wife of the deceased entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.22,63,709/-. The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest on the compensation, but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the interest to which the petitioner is entitled is only 6% on the total compensation amount. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1399 of 2007 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.22,63,709/- from Rs.14,16,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The M.A.C.M.A.No.1495 of 2008 is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest on the awarded amount from 7.5% to 6% P.A. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:14-12-2011 Ksp