THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No. 2655 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company is the appellant. In this appeal, the Insurance Company questions not only its liability but also quantum of compensation. Necessary permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was obtained by the Insurance Company in the lower Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal by award dated 11.07.2007 in O.P.No.1733 of 2005 awarded compensation of Rs.8,29,820/- to the respondents/claimants of the deceased Ylavarthy Suryanarayana aged about 38 years and who was working as Junior Operator in A.P. Rayons Ballarpur Industries Limited at Kamalapur. The incident took place on 27.06.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. in the night near culvert No.78/1 on national High way No.202 when the deceased was proceeding from his native village Govindaraopet on his Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 36 K 306. An unknown motor vehicle hit motor cycle of the deceased at that place and left the scene of accident. On information furnished by PW2 about the accident in which the deceased died, brother of the deceased gave report to the police on 28.06.2004 at about 9.00 A.M. The police registered Ex.A1-F.I.R. against driver of unknown motor vehicle, because it was a case of hit and run. The investigation of the criminal case proceeded as against driver of an unknown motor vehicle till 05.07.2004. On 05.07.2004, owner of the DCM van bearing No. AP 36 V 6481 came to the police station and produced his driver in the police station and after interrogating the driver who confessed the offence, CW1 who is the Investigating Officer arrested him and filed Ex.A5 charge sheet against driver of the said DCM van. Before the lower Tribunal, PW2 was examined as an eye witness to the occurrence. During his evidence, PW2 stated that when he along with another was proceeding on a two wheeler near the scene of accident, the accident took place when DCM van bearing No. AP 36 V 6481 came in opposite direction on wrong side and hit motor cycle of the deceased and went away. As per PW2’s evidence, he gave number of the accident vehicle to PW1 within one hour of the accident. Inspite of the same, description of the accident vehicle do not find place in Ex.A1-FIR given by brother of the deceased to the police, though he disclosed source of information of the accident to him. Thus, it is on record that it was PW2 who first went to the scene of accident and saw dead body of the deceased after the accident. Even as per evidence of CW1 also, PW2 was not an eye witness to the occurrence and he was going along with another in a bus and not on a two wheeler and the bus in which PW2 was travelling reached the scene of accident subsequent to the accident. Therefore, evidence of PW2 as eye witness to the accident cannot be believed. But this Court cannot totally brush aside the happenings which took place on 05.07.2004 in the police station. Owner of the accident vehicle on that day went to the police station along with his driver and surrendered his driver and produced his DCM van stating that his van was involved in the accident and his driver was responsible for the accident. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that owner of DCM van colluded with the claimants after ten days of the accident and made his driver to surrender before the police. For the said allegation of collusion, there is no basis on record. It is not as if owner of DCM van was previously known to family of the deceased or was in any way connected or related with family of the deceased. He was a total stranger to family of the deceased. He not only produced his driver but also produced his van before the police. Further Ex.A4 dated 06.07.2004 accident Report given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector after examining the DCM van on 05.07.2004 shows that there were certain indications to show that DCM van was involved in the accident. There was dent on front right side of the body and breakage of right head light assembly as well as side parking light. In my opinion, the lower Tribunal basing on the above facts and evidence of CW1 and ExA4 rightly came to the conclusion that driver of DCM van bearing No. AP 36 V 6481 was responsible for the accident. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Tribunal erred in taking gross salary of the deceased as the basis to arrive at income of the deceased. He placed reliance on ASHA v UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that gross salary should not be taken as the basis, but net salary has to be taken into account. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] held that while determining the multiplicand, entire salary of the deceased has to be taken into account after deducting income tax paid and profession tax deducted therefrom. As per Ex.A7 salary slip dated 30.06.2004 of the deceased, gross salary of the deceased was Rs.11,863/- per month. The lower Tribunal after making deductions therefrom took computable salary of the deceased as Rs.7642/-. The lower Tribunal deducted over time amount of Rs.3826/- and further deducted Rs.1358/- which are statutory deductions. The lower Tribunal did not deduct LIC amount of Rs.1377/- and APR society loan of Rs.1332/-. Having regard to the deductible amounts, I am of the opinion that the lower Tribunal has deducted more amounts than necessary from his gross salary of Rs.11,863/- and took the computable salary as only Rs.7,642/-. The lower Tribunal selected multiplier of 13 for the age of 38 years. There is no cross appeal or cross objections by the claimants. In the circumstances, I find that the lower Tribunal has rightly arrived at pecuniary compensation at Rs.7,94,820/-. Apart from that the lower Tribunal rightly granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses as non pecuniary damages. Thus, total compensation of Rs.8,29,820/- awarded by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 08.12.2010 Lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No. 2655 OF 2007 Dt. 08.12.2010 [1] 2004 ACJ 448 [2] 2009 (6) SCC 121