THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2154 & 2609 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) These two appeals MACMA No.2154 of 2011, by the Insurance Company and MACMA No.2609 of 2007, by the claimants, question the order dated 26.6.2007 passed in O.P.No.470 of 2005 by the Chairman Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking reduction and enhancement, respectively. The claimants, who are the father, mother and brother of the deceased M.N. Prasad Raju, filed O.P before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for his death in the motor accident. On 20.8.2003 at about 13.00 hours, while the deceased was proceeding towards NFC side from Krishna Nagar on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 28AC 8065, when he reached NFC Main road, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 5039 of Navata Transport coming from NFC side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from front side. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries to his head and right leg. Immediately, he was shifted to Poulomi Hospital, where the doctors declared him brought dead. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a Doctor. He was working as a Duty Doctor in Venkateswara Nursing Home. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. He was also doing private practice at his clinic in Indira Nagar, and used to earn another Rs.10,000/- p.m. Thus, in total, the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- p.m., and he used to contribute his entire earnings to his family. The deceased was a young and intelligent doctor and had a bright future. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed by them. The owner of the Lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant – Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material allegations. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of respondents R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.12,18,000/- towards compensation under all the heads, with proportionate costs and with future interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company and the claimants filed these two appeals, seeking reduction and enhancement respectively. The learned Counsel for the claimants contended that considering the fact that the deceased was a Doctor and was very young, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation by taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The deceased was working as a Duty Doctor in the nursing home of P.W.3. He used to pay the deceased monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Besides that, the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- through private practice. Since the deceased was unmarried, the age of his dependant-brother has to be taken into consideration. However, the Tribunal without considering all these aspects, committed an error in granting meagre compensation and as such, the same needs to be enhanced. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and therefore, the same needs to be reduced. The fact that the deceased died in the accident is not in dispute. The fact that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 5039 of Navata Transport and insured with the Insurance Company is also not disputed. The dispute, however, is only as regards the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded is excessive while the claimants contend that the compensation awarded is meagre and needs to be enhanced. The deceased, as is evident from the evidence of P.W.3-owner of the Nursing Home, was working as a Duty Doctor and was drawing Rs.10,000/- p.m. Though, the claimants proved the income of the deceased by way of his working as a Duty Doctor in the Nursing Home of P.W.3, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4 as regards the income earned by the deceased by way of private practice. However, since the deceased was a MBBS graduate and was already working as a Duty Doctor in the Nursing Home of P.W.3, and as he is said to be also engaged in private practice, we can safely take his income by way of private practice at Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- per month claimed by the claimants. The deceased at the time of his death in the accident was aged 25 years. He was unmarried and had a bright future. As is evident from the evidence of P.W.3, the employment of the deceased was permanent in the Nursing Home of P.W.3. Since the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, as a Duty Doctor in the Nursing Home of P.W.3, and his employment was permanent, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], 50% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary of the deceased towards his future prospects. On such addition, (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-), the monthly salary of the deceased by reason of his employment as Duty Doctor in Nursing Home of P.W.3 would be Rs.15,000/- p.m. To the said amount, the income earned by the deceased by way of private practice should be added. On such addition (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/-), the monthly salary of the deceased would come to Rs.20,000/-. As the deceased was unmarried, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case, 50% of his income i.e., Rs.10,000/-, has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On such deduction, the contribution of the deceased to his family would come to Rs.10,000/- p.m., i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- per year. Since the deceased is unmarried, the age of his mother should be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the multiplier. The material on record goes to show that the mother of the deceased was aged about 41 years. As per judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case, the relevant multiplier applicable to person aged 41 years, is ‘14’. Hence, if the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 14 (Rs.1,20,000/- x 14), the loss of dependency to the claimants, on account of the death of the deceased, would come to Rs.16,80,000/-. Apart from the said sum, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- each under the heads “funeral expenses” and “loss of estate”. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/-. However, having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma case, the interest payable on the compensation is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,18,000/- to Rs.16,90,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, both MACMA No.2154 of 2007 filed by the Insurance Company and the MACMA No.2609 of 2007 filed by the claimants, are partly allowed. No order as to costs.` __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 19.12.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD MACMA Nos.2154 & 2609 OF 2007 (COMMON JUDGMENT delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 19.12.2011 Nn [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121