THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1835 of 2006 DATED: 22-12-2010 JUDGMENT: Though the M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3561 of 2010 came up for hearing, both the learned counsel have argued the main appeal. Accordingly the main appeal itself is being disposed of. 2. Appellants herein, who are respondents 3 and 4 before the Tribunal preferred this appeal challenging the order, dated 31-08-2005, in M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2003 passed by the learned III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal. 3. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The 1st claimant is the mother; 2nd claimant is the wife and the claimants 3 to 5 are the children of the Soma Surendera Kumar who died in a motor accident. According to the claimants Soma Surendera Kumar, hereinafter referred as the deceased, was working as Senior Salesman in ‘Damayanthi Enterprises’, Hyderabad. On 25-02-2003, at about 10.00 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding to his house on his cycle, after attending his duties and when he reached near Modern Bread Factory bus stop, he met with an accident when the driver of the TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 11 U 7589 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased from his behind. Though the deceased was shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, he succumbed to injuries. The claimants initially contended that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month. Police registered a case against the driver of the vehicle. 5. The 1st respondent-driver and the 2nd respondent- owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter, inter alia, contending that the claimants have to prove the accident and monthly income of the deceased and that the claim is exorbitant. 6. On behalf of the claimants, 2nd claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no document was marked. 7. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and after deducting Rs.600/- towards conveyance and educational expenses of his children, the monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3400/-. 8. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that Tribunal erred in taking the income of deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. It is also contended that the claimants will be entitled to only Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and that the award of the Tribunal is on the higher side. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants has supported the order of the Tribunal and mainly contended that the deceased was aged about 37 years and that though claimants filed the salary certificate showing the income of deceased as Rs.7000/-, but the said salary certificate was not considered by the Tribunal and the future prospects in income were not taken into consideration. 10. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the loss of earnings fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether award is liable to be modified? 11. As seen from the pleadings, the claimants have initially claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month. According to P.W.1, her husband was working as Senior Salesman in ‘Dhamayanthi Enterprises’ and used to get monthly salary of Rs.4000/-. The deceased was aged 37 years at the time of the accident. Since the claimants themselves initially averred that the income of the deceased was only Rs.4000/- per month and none was examined to the salary certificate, it appears the Tribunal was justified in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. 12. P.W.1 admitted that the deceased was getting commission on sales. Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was not earning Rs.4000/- per month and that he may be earning only Rs.2600/- per month, but admittedly the insurance company did not adduce any evidence in support of its contention. Moreover, no suggestion was given to P.W.1 that her husband was not earning Rs.4000/- per month or that his income was only Rs.2600/- per month. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased and number of deponents, depending upon him, I am of the view that the Tribunal was justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-. 13. As seen from the guidelines of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SUSAMMA THOMAS [2], certain additions have to be made to the income of the deceased, where he was having a regular income and permanent employment. No suggestion was given to P.W.1 that the deceased was not doing any permanent job. Therefore, in the absence of showing any Government Order prescribing the minimum wages for the job of a Senior Salesman, I am of the view that there is no need to disturb the finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased. Since no additions have been made to the income of the deceased and having regard to the number of dependants, who are depending on the deceased, I feel that there is no need to deduct any amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased or towards conveyance and educational expenses of the children or from the amounts awarded towards loss of estate or towards loss of consortium. Thus it appears that there is no need to disturb the findings of the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J 22nd December, 2010 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] (1994) 2 SCC 176