THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2857 of 1999 Dated:16.11.2009 Between: Smt.Bheesetty Manikyam, And others. ….Petitioners And Mohana Rao, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2857 of 1999 ORDER: This appeal by claimants is against award dated 30.07.1999 in M.O.P.No.549 of 1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, seeking enhancement of the compensation. They filed the said O.P claiming Rs.2,50,000/- whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Bheesetty Chinnarao. The appellants are legal heirs of late Chinnarao. First appellant is the wife, appellant Nos.2 to 5 are his sons. Chinnarao had retired from Naval base. He was also engaged as Grade-I Contractor with the Naval base and electrical works. He was undertaking such works in the name and style of ‘Bhuvaneswari Electrical Works’. On 22.10.1995 when he was going on a TVS Champ vehicle bearing No.AP 31 E 1696, a lorry bearing No.AAA 9243 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, he fell down and died on the spot. Alleging that he was aged about 68 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a contractor, the O.P was instituted. The O.P was dismissed against the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The United India Insurance Company – insurer; contested the matter opposing the O.P on the question of negligence as well as compensation. The Tribunal framed three issues. During enquiry the fifth appellant gave evidence as P.W.1 and second appellant gave evidence as P.W.2. They also marked Exs.A1 to A10 including Ex.A5 which is the Income Tax clearance certificate. The contesting respondent did not lead any evidence. Taking the evidence into consideration, learned Tribunal applied multiplier 5 and determined the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-, and accordingly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation after deducting 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in not awarding amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Relying on Ex.A5, he submits that when there was no rebuttal evidence, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. This Court has perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are none other than the sons of deceased. This Court also has thoroughly examined Ex.A5 – Income Tax clearance certificate given by the Income Tax Officer. It is endorsed thereon that the said certificate is given for the purpose of submitting to Military Engineering Services, Garrison Engineering (NB). Therefore, it may not correctly reflect the actual income of the deceased. Be that as it is, the certificate contains the following particulars concerning income tax assessment for the five years from 1991-1992 to 1995-1996. Year of Assessment 1 Total Income assessed 2 Tax demanded 3 Tax Paid 4 Balance due 5 1995-96 (32,840) NIL 15,184 - 1994-95 (30,640) NIL 12,006 - 1993-94 (11,090) NIL 12,377 - 1992-93 81,240 6551 6,551 - 1991-92 60,580 3370 3,370 - From the above it can be seen that during the year 1995-1996 the income of Chinnarao for the income tax is Rs.32,840/- and as he died on 22.10.1995, it is safe to rely on the same. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly considered Rs.2,500/- as monthly income and after deducting 1/3rd, applied multiplier. Be it noted, as per the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[1] if the deceased is above 65 years, multiplier applicable is 5. Applying the same, the Tribunal correctly arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.1,00,000/-. It is now well settled, as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v Susamma Thomas[2] that a conventional sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate have to be granted. In addition, the claimants also claimed funeral expenses. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was contractor, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appellants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) under these headings, and they would be entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand only). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award of the lower Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as indicated hereinabove is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.11.2009 vs [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] (1994) 2 SCC 176 = AIR 1994 SC 1631