THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 2179 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per NVR,J) The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order, dated 23.02.2007, passed in O.P.No.1447 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondents 1 to 4-claimants, who are the wife, daughters and son of the deceased Thamme Maruthi filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 2.10.2000 at Sravya Garden, Nizamabad, when the bus bearing No. AHT-5788 coming in opposite direction, hit the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-25B-1510, on which the deceased was riding. It is the case of the claimants that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The deceased at the time of accident was aged about 47. He was working as Assistant Engineer in N.S.R. Division, Nizamabad and drawing salary of Rs.12,392/- p.m. He was contributing his entire salary to the claimants, and due to his sudden death, they lost their dependency. The 5th respondent herein owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. While the appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement denying all the material allegations. They stated that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda motorcycle by the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the compensation. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked and on behalf of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined, but Exs.B-1 copy of the Insurance Policy was marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding compensation of Rs.13,08,716/- to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation, ought to have taken the net salary of the deceased instead of his gross salary. Since the annual income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/-, Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, has no application, but the Tribunal, erroneously applied the multiplier provided in Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, he submitted that the compensation needs to be reduced. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. It is not in dispute that on 2.10.2000, while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda motor cycle, the accident occurred. The evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and he first dashed against the motor cycle bearing No.AP 25/A-2040 and then dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, and as a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. The documents filed on behalf of the claimants also support the version of P.W.3 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Insurance Company except contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, did not adduce any evidence to disprove the case of the claimants that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Hence, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants to prove that the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,392/- per month, produced Ex.A10 salary Certificate of the deceased. No evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to deny the contents of Ex.A10 or disprove the same. Ex.A10 is issued by the Executive Engineer, I & CADD, N.S.R. Division i.e., employer of the deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased, based on Ex.A10-saary certificate, can be taken at Rs.12,392/- per month. The deceased had four dependants. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], where the deceased had four to six dependants, one- fourth of the salary should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased has four dependants, one-fourth of his salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses. On such deduction (Rs.12,392/- minus Rs.3,098/-), his contribution to the family will come to Rs.9,294/-per month or Rs.1,11,528/- per annum. As per Ex.A5 Post Mortem examination report and Ex.A12 SSC memo of the deceased, the deceased was aged about 47 years as on date of his death in the accident. As per decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma Case, the multiplier applicable to the person aged 48, is ‘13’. Therefore, if the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 13, (Rs.1,11,528/- x 13), the compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.14,49,864/-. Apart from the said amount, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, while respondent No.1 would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards “loss of consortium”, as awarded by the Tribunal. As the claimants are entitled to more compensation that what has been awarded, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Even though the claimants are entitled to more compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal, but since they did not file any appeal seeking enhancement, they are not entitled to any enhancement in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case, the interest playable on the compensation is reduced from 7.5% p.a., to 6% p.a. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, reducing the interest on the compensation, as indicated above. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J __________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J Dated: 21-12-2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No. 2179 of 2007 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 21.12.2011 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121