HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.603 of 2008 Date: 22-7-2011 Between M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Having office at D.No.4, Whites Roads, Chennai … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and G.Sarasamma and another … Respondents/Petitioners P.Bhaskar Rao and another … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.603 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03-10-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant- Insurance Company. 2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and the respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.382 of 2005 before the tribunal below. The claimants filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased G.Ravi in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20-5- 2004. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.9,30,000/- under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly urged that the tribunal below applied multiplier ‘15’ instead of ‘14’ and that the tribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is excessive and placed reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[1] and urged that multiplier ‘14’ is to be applied and the amounts granted towards funeral expenses and loss of estate are to be reduced to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. 4. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the judgment of the tribunal below applying multiplier ‘15’ and granting Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses is sustainable ? 5. Point:- The factum of accident is not in dispute. The appellants-claimants are the parents of the deceased G.Ravi. He is a bachelor on the date of accident. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was a Post Graduate in Finance Management Course and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month towards salary. The tribunal below while computing the deductions arrived the net salary of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month as per Ex.A-10. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of D.R.D.A., Nellore under contract basis and he was not a permanent employee. The age of the mother of the deceased was 42 years as on the date of accident and the same is not disputed. 6. As seen from the impugned judgment, the tribunal below deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. While placing reliance on the judgment in SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra), 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12). If 50% is deducted from the said amount, it comes to Rs.45,000/-. Since the age of the mother of the deceased was 42 years as on the date of accident, the relevant multiplier applicable is ‘14’ as per the guidelines in the judgment in SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra). If the same is applied, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 14). 7. As seen from the impugned judgment, the tribunal below granted Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, which, in my view, is just and reasonable. The tribunal below has also granted Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. But, as per the judgment in SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra), the same is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. In total, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,55,000/-. 8. With this modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal below from Rs.9,30,000/- to Rs.6,55,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and fifty five thousand only). No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 22nd July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.603 of 2008 22nd July, 2011. (Ak) [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121