P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West godavari, at Eluru, passed in O. P. No. 387 of 1994, dated 31/10/1998. The claimants are appellants.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that on 30/3/1994 at about 1. 00 p. m. , the deceased, who was a Regional Deputy Director, information and Public Relations Department, vijayawada was going in a jeep bearing no. AP 16-U/2164 along with his driver and when they reached at K. M. Stone 71/6-71/8 on N. H. No. 5 near Denduluru village, West godavari District, lorry bearing No. ATW4559 driven by the first respondent coming from hyderabad side came in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed the said jeep. Consequently the deceased in this o. P. and the driver of the lorry died.

( 3 ) SEPARATE O. P. for compensation forthe death of the driver is also filed and tried as o. P. No. 389 of 1994 along with the present o. P. No. 387 of 1994.

( 4 ) A joint trial was held and in this case the petitioners claimed a compensation of rs. 15,00,000. 00. A compensation of rs. 5,85,500. 00 was awarded by the Tribunal.

( 5 ) THE contesting respondent-insurance company did not file any appeal and the only question in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that the date of birth of the deceased was 1/3/1954 and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,928-00 p. m. which was taken as Rs. 6,000. 00. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was the Deputy director in Information and Public Relations department, Vijayawada and he was the regional Deputy Directorforthree districts in the zone. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 40 years, applied the multiplier of 12, and reduced V3rd of the total income. Thus, deducting Rs. 2,000. 00 from the salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 per month and calculated annual income at Rs. 48,000. 00 and granted a compensation of Rs. 5,76,000. 00 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500. 00 towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total comes to Rs. 5,85,500. 00.

( 7 ) NOW, the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellants isthatthe deceased was just aged 40 years, he was working as senior Government Servant, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the prospects of his future promotions and earnings, that during the course of time his salary would have gone up manifold and he would have been promoted even upto the rankof Director. As such, the compensation granted is inadequate.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the contention of the contesting respondents is that as lump sum amount is being paid, the Tribunal correctly granted the compensation on the basis of the salary of the deceased on the date of the accident.

( 9 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal.

( 10 ) AS referred above; facts that the deceased was aged 40 years, was getting salary around Rs. 6,000. 00 per month, and was working as Senior Officer in the State government as Deputy Director are not in dispute.

( 11 ) IF the salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 is taken into consideration, the compensation of rs. 5,76,0007- granted by the Tribunal is in order. The question is whether any higher amount of income can be taken into consideration in view of the prospects of promotions before retirement of thedeceased in case he was alive and consequent enhancement of salary not only on account of promotions, but on account of periodical increase in Dearness allowance, increments, pay revisions etc. As the deceased was aged 40 years, it cannot be disputed that he could have at least got one or two promotions. It also cannot be disputed that during the span of 18 years of service, there would have been at least two or three pay revisions and his salary would have gone up about three times on account of pay revisions, periodical increments and enhancement of Dearness allowance. The question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document