THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 578 of 2007 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant-claimants filed this appeal questioning the award dated 03.02.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in M.V.O.P. No. 47 of 2003, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,96,800/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against their claim of Rs.21,82,000/- contending that the same is very meagre and needs enhancement. On 05.05.2001, at about 7.45 a.m., while the deceased- Laxminarayana was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 5P 237 to Yanam from Kakinada, on his business work, and on reaching Coringa bridge, he met with an accident, when a lorry bearing No. TN 65A 0262, belonging to respondent No.2, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased was ran over by the lorry and he died instantaneously. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against respondent No.1, who is driver of the lorry. The appellants contending that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 22 years, was earning Rs.22,000/- per month as a lorry supplier and that they are dependant on him, filed M.V.O.P. on the file of the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.21,82,000/- from the respondents, who are the driver and owner of the lorry and the insurance company with whom the lorry was insured. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-driver of the lorry and its owner remained ex parte. While respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter denying its liability to pay the compensation stating that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not the driver of the lorry. That claim of compensation made by the appellants is excessive and exorbitant. They thus prayed that the M.V.O.P. be dismissed. The Tribunal considering the rival pleadings, framed two issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and whether the appellants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A8, while respondent No.3-Insurance Company examined none, but marked Ex. B1-policy. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in and the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the fact that the deceased was a transport contractor and that even after his death, his family members can carry on the business of transport, felt it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/-, and after deducting one-third of the said amount towards his personal expenses, arrived his contribution to the family at Rs. 2,800/- per month i.e. Rs. 33,600/- per annum, and by applying the multiplier 13 arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.4,36,800/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal, by the order under appeal, awarded compensation of Rs.4,96,800/- The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased was having three lorries and was doing business in transportation of goods. Considering Exs. A5 and A7-Income Tax Returns, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/- and it committed an error in taking his monthly income at Rs.4,200/-. He further submitted that since the deceased is having four dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only one-fourth of his income towards personal expenses, and it committed an error in deducting one-third towards his personal expenses. He submitted that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 42 years and not 45 years. This is evident from the SSC certificate, which reflects the date of birth of the deceased 18.06.1974. Considering the fact that deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 42 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplied 16 and it committed an error in applying the multiplier 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal considering the income tax returns filed by the deceased, has rightly taken his income at Rs.4,200/- per month. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just compensation, does not call for any further enhancement by this Court in appeal, and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. None appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorry. The fact that the deceased is having three lorries and is doing business in transport is not in dispute. Though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/- per month by doing business in transport, but a perusal of Ex. A7-income tax would reveal, that the deceased was getting income of Rs.1,800/- per month on each lorry and for three lorries Rs.5,400/-. The Tribunal, admittedly, has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/- per month, but considering Ex. A7, we are of the opinion that the income as disclosed therein by the deceased therein at Rs.5,400/- should be taken. Accordingly, we fix the monthly income of the deceased on the three lorries at Rs.5,400/- per month i.e. Rs. 64,800/- per annum. The deceased was married and at the time of accident, was having four dependants. The Tribunal, admittedly, has deducted one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, but as per the judgment of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1],where there are four to six dependants, one-fourth of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, we deduct one- fourth of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses (Rs. 64,800/- minus Rs.16,200/-) and on such deduction, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.48,600/-. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 42 years, and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14. By application of multiplier 14, (Rs.48,600/- x 14), the loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,80,400/-. The Tribunal, admittedly, has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, but as per the judgment in Sarla Verma, appellant No.1 is entitled to only Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation under the head “loss of consortium” to appellant No.1 is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. As per the judgment in Sarla Verma, the appellants are entitled to only Rs.5,000/- under the head “loss of estate” and not Rs.40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, and therefore, the compensation under the said head, is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. The appellants, as awarded by the Tribunal, are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body of the deceased and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 7,00,400/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,96,800/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.7,00,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on enhanced compensation. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 28th October, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121