ORDER
G. Rohini, J.
1. The claimants in O.P.No. 658 of 1989 filed this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Nalgonda by Award, dated 19.10.1990 in O.P.No. 658 of 1989.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The appellants herein filed O.P.No. 658 of 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Kancherla Sreenivasa Reddy in a motor accident. Appellants No. 1 is the wife and appellants 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy. According to the claimants, the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was hale and healthy and was working as Headmaster in the Upper Primary School at Thanderapally Village, Nalgonda District. On 5.2.1989, at about 4.30 p.m., while the deceased K. Sreenivasa Reddy was going on a scooter bearing No. AAL 5092 along with another person by name Narayana Reddy and while they reached PWD Road leading from Bhongir to Chityal, the lorry bearing No. A.A.E. 7839 belonging to the 1st respondent came at high speed from the opposite and hit the scooter of me deceased.
3. It is the case of the claimants that the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident due to which, the deceased died on the spot and the pillion rider suffered injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,200/-per month and since they lost the only earning member of their family, they made a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the owner of the lorry as well as the 2 respondent with whom the lorry was insured.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing a counter denying various allegations made therein regarding the accident. The Insurance Company also disputed the income of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.
5. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings, the Tribunal below settled the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the deceased Kancherla Srinivas Reddy died having involved in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAE 7839, or due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of scooter bearing No. AAL 5092 by the deceased himself?
(2) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal below, the 1st claimant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and the pillion rider who was an eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW2. The claimants also marked Exs.A1 to A16 documents in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined, but the certificate of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1.
7. The Tribunal below on appreciation of the evidence on record held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAE 7839 resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.
8. On issue No. 2 regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency and awarded a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, dated 19.10.1990, the claimants have come up with the present appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is not adequate.
9. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the Court below as to the quantum of compensation are not based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,07,000/- is not at all adequate as against the claim made at Rs. 5,00,000/- In the facts and circumstances of the case, he contends that the appellants are entitled for higher compensation.
11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
12. Having heard both the learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, it is to be noted that the deceased K. Srinivas Reddy was working as Headmaster in an Upper Primary School. As per the Service Register-Ex.A4, he was aged about 46 years as on the date of the accident. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. In view of the deposition of PW1-wife of the deceased, coupled with Ex.A5, which is the salary and service certificate issued by the Mandal Development Officer, Gurrampode, there cannot be any dispute that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3,106/- by the date of his death. However, the Tribunal below while assessing loss of dependency curiously observed that out of the monthly earning, the deceased must be contributing to the clothing and education of each of the petitioners 2 to 5 who are the minor children at Rs. 300/- per month and for the maintenance of the petitioner No. 1 i.e., wife of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per month. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the deceased must be contributing to the maintenance and education of the claimants at Rs. 1,000/- per month out of the gross salary of Rs. 3,106/-. The Tribunal also observed that since petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are aged about 16 and 14 years respectively when once they got married, the deceased would not be obliged to maintain them. Having observed so, the Tribunal below has fixed the loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month, which comes to Rs. 19,200/- per year and by applying the multiplier 10 fixed the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,92,000/-.
13. I am of the view that the approach of the Tribunal in determining the loss of dependency is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. In view of the fact that PW1 has categorically deposed that the deceased was contributing his salary for the maintenance of his family, the Tribunal below cannot presume that the deceased must be contributing a sum of Rs. 300/- per each of the child and Rs. 400/-for the wife. On the other hand, when there are four minor daughters, the Tribunal below ought to have visualized the expenditure that the 1st claimant has to bear in future for their marriages and the contribution of the deceased had he been alive and continued in service. The Tribunal is not at all justified in drawing the presumption that the deceased must be contributing only a sum of Rs. 1,600/- per month out of his salary of Rs. 3,106/- in the absence of any evidence to that effect. The Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1631, has considered this aspect and held as follows:
'The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase''.
14. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount, which the deceased was accustomed to spend for himself during his life time and it is the duty of the Court to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the maintenance of the family. In the instant case, PW1 who is the wife of the deceased has categorically stated that her husband was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,106/- per month and was spending the same for the maintenance of the family. Since the deceased was working as Headmaster in the Upper Primary School and was staying along with his family in a village, his personal expenditure could not be exceeding more than 1/3rd of his salary. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduct 1/3rd of his monthly salary towards his personal expenditure and it must be held that he was contributing the balance for the maintenance of his family. Accordingly I hold that the deceased must be contributing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the maintenance of his family which could come to Rs. 24,000/- per year.
15. So far as the multiplier is concerned, appropriate multiplier as indicated by this Court in Bhagawandas case, 1987 (2) ALT 137, basing on the age of the deceased is 10. However, from the evidence of PW1 and also Exs. A4, A5, A7, A8 and A10, it is clear that the deceased was a qualified teacher and at the time of his death, he was working as Headmaster in the Upper Primary School and there is every possibility of his getting promotion and at any rate, it cannot be denied that there would be definite hike in his salary by the revised pay scales and the yearly increments. Hence, this is a fit case where future prospects of the deceased must be taken into consideration for awarding the just and reasonable compensation to the claimants and to increase the multiplier atleast by one point. Accordingly, instead of multiplier 10, I deem it appropriate to apply multiplier 11 following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC v. Jana Bai and Ors., : 2001(4)ALT538 .
16. In the circumstances, if the annual contribution of the deceased as assessed above is multiplied by 11, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,94,000/-(2000x12x11).
17. It is also noted that the Tribunal below has not awarded any amount to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the 1st claimant, 1 am of the view that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled for the following amounts under different heads towards compensation:
(1) Towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,64,000/-
(2) Towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-
(3) Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-.
18. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,94,000/-. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,94,000/-instead of Rs. 2,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % from the date of petition til the date of realization as awarded by the Tribunal.
19. Out of the enhanced amount the 1st appellant shall be entitled exclusively for Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium. The balance shall be apportioned among all the appellants equally.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.