IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1046 of 2007 & M.A.C.M.A.No.2838 of 2008 DATE:16.11.2010 M.A.C.M.A.No.1046 of 2007 Between: National Insurance Company Limited …… Petitioner And Chinthakindi Rachana and others …..Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.2838 of 2008 Between: Chinthakindi Rachana and others …… Petitioners And G.Narsaiah and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1046 of 2007 & M.A.C.M.A.No.2838 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: M.A.C.M.A.No.1046 of 2007 is filed by the insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.2838 of 2008 is filed by the claimants questioning award dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, Jagtial in O.P.No.184 of 2005. The claimants are wife and mother of the deceased Chintakindi Ganesh who died in road accident which occurred on 31.08.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of van bearing No.AP 01 V 0990 which was an insured one. In these appeals, there is no dispute about finding of the lower Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle at the time of accident. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation. The insurance company obtained necessary permission from the lower Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2) The lower Tribunal awarded pecuniary compensation of Rs.6,94,800/- and non-pecuniary compensation of Rs.30,000/- and rounded off the same to a total of Rs.7,25,000/-. Pecuniary compensation was determined by fixing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and by adopting multiplier of 17.37 for the age of 27 years of the deceased. The lower Tribunal selected the multiplier at 17.37 basing o n Bhagwandas V. Mohammad Arif[1] of this Court. It is contended by the Company’s counsel that as per latest legal position declared by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], for the above age of the deceased, the multiplier to be selected is 17 and not 17.37. If the pecuniary compensation is calculated by taking the multiplier as 17, then it comes to Rs.6,80,000/- instead of Rs.6,94,800/-. On the other hand, the claimants’ counsel contended that fixing of income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. is on lower side having regard to his qualifications and earnings in U.A.E. He placed reliance on B.Ramulamma V. Venkatesh Bus Union[3] of Division Bench of this Court in support of his contention. I n Ramulamma (3 supra) the question was with regard to notional income to be fixed in the case of an engineering graduate who was not yet employed. The Division Bench held that his earning capacity has to be fixed taking income of classmate of the deceased as the basis. In the case on hand, the deceased was working in Saudi Arabia. According to the claimants, there was earning of 1,500 Dirhams equivalent to Rs.15,000/- in Indian currency per month. No doubt, as can be seen from Ex.A-10 certificate, the deceased was possessing I.T.I certificate in automobile, petrol and diesel mechanism. There is no proof except assertion of P.W-1 to show income of the deceased as pleaded by her. Ex.A-14 fax certificate said to have been issued by Racing Carriage, Dubai cannot be taken into consideration as no person relating to the said certificate from the employer’s side was examined. Having regard to qualification of employment of the deceased, the lower Tribunal rightly fixed income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of proof of income, notification of the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act can be taken into consideration for fixing income of the deceased as a skilled worker. No such notification is filed by the claimants. At any rate, such notification issued in the year 2005 did not prescribe minimum wage of more than Rs.5,000/- per month for a skilled worker. 3) It is contended by the claimants’ counsel that since the deceased was a salaried employee, reasonable amount of escalation of his income towards future profits should have been taken into consideration by the lower Tribunal. At this juncture, Sarla Verma (2 supra) of the Supreme Court assumes relevance. It was held by the Supreme Court therein “In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read asactual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” There is no material on record to show service conditions of the deceased with the company abroad where he was working. There is no proof that he was a salaried employee or a contractual employee. In any private employment, it is of usual practice that they employ workers on contractual basis or on piece-rate basis and not on salary basis. In the absence of proof of service conditions of the deceased in this case, in view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the claimants are not entitled for any escalation of income towards future profits. 4) It is contended by the claimants’ counsel that though non- pecuniary damages of Rs.30,000/- was granted by the lower Tribunal, no amount is awarded towards funereal charges, transport charges etc., I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.14,000/- can be awarded towards all the other charges, in order to maintain the amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal. The said amount of Rs.14,000/- is the difference amount of pecuniary compensation determined on the basis of multiplier of 17 instead of 17.37. Thus, I am of the opinion that amount awarded by the lower Tribunal towards compensation to the claimants is just compensation and that it is not liable to be disturbed in these two appeals. 5) In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 16, 2010 ksh [1] 1987(2) ALT 137 [2] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC) [3] 2009(6) ALD 684