THE HON’’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2281 OF 2008 and CROSS OBJECTIONS SR.No.49330 of 2008 JUDGMENT : This appeal and cross objections are directed against the order dated 01.05.2008 in O.P.No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short the ‘Tribunal’) wherein the claim of respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.4,33,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of their son Velapally Karthik @ Karthik Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.03.2007. Respondents 1 and 2, the claimants, are the parents of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was returning to Karimnagar on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP 15A-4959 and at about 3 P.M. near Narasimhaswamy temple, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z-3967 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting in grievous injuries and the deceased was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Karimnagar and then referred to Hyderabad for better treatment, but on the way he died. A case in Crime No.38 of 2007 was registered by the LMD Colony Police. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 21 years and was studying Engineering and that he was also working as part time Computer Instructor and Programmer at Golden Institute of Computers and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The 3rd respondent herein, driver of the APSRTC bus filed counter and the appellant-APSRTC has also filed separate written statement opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle ie., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z-3967 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? During enquiry, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were also marked on behalf of the appellant herein. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held in Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,33,500/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred the present appeal and not being satisfied with the award the claimants filed Cross Objections seeking enhancement of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver is not seriously challenged. It is also not disputed that the deceased was aged 21 years and was unmarried and was as student studying third year of Engineering course at the time of the accident. In support of their plea that, being a student, the deceased was also earning by doing a part time job as a Computer Instructor, the claimants examined PW.5 Manager of SSI Computer Education and produced Ex.X.2 certificate issued by PW.5. It is in the evidence of PW.5 that he is running the institute in the name of Soft Info Services and the deceased was working as Junior faculty on part-time basis from June, 2006 to 10.3.2007 on a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and that he issued the salary certificate Ex.X.1. The Tribunal, having taken the testimony of PW.5 and Ex.X.2 into consideration, however, took the income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- per month, though as per the evidence of PW.5, coupled with Ex.X.2, the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The contents of Ex.X.2 are duly proved by PW.5 and his testimony is not discredited in any manner. When that is so, the Tribunal has rightly taken the testimony of PW.5 and the contents of Ex.X.2 into consideration, but however erred in taking the income only at Rs.3,000/- per month, though the evidence on record established that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month as Junior Instructor. The Tribunal further erred in taking the multiplier ‘17’ for the purpose of estimating the loss of dependency by considering the age of the deceased, even though the deceased was admittedly unmarried. The Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration and applied the suitable multiplier relevant to her age. The second claimant, the mother of the deceased, is aged 43 years and the appropriate multiplier for that age, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is ‘14’. As per the said decision in the case of unmarried person, 50% has to be deducted from the income towards the personal expenses. Thus, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and deducting 50% thereof towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,500/- per month and applying the multiplier ‘14’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,500 X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. As the deceased died immediately after the accident on the same day, the question of awarding any compensation towards pain and suffering does not arise. Similarly, as the deceased was unmarried and the compensation is being awarded to the parents by way of loss of dependency. Hence awarding compensation separately towards loss of love and affection is also not called for. The claimants are, however, entitled for a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges and thus the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,25,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. In the circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There are no valid or sufficient grounds for enhancement of compensation. The Cross Objections are dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd July, 2010 PNV [1] 2009(3) ALD 83(SC)