T. RAJANI, J.

1. Though the impugned order is a common order passed in MVOP Nos. 650 and 707 of 2003, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal assailing the order in MVOP No. 650 of 2003 dated 22.1.2013, passed by the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, on the grounds that the Court below erred in applying the multiplier 11, even though the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident; it erred in not granting any amount under the head pecuniary damages viz., loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc., it erred in taking the income of the deceased Rs. 17,58,960/- per annum, though the deceased was working as Senior Software Engineer in Agrim Technologies Inc., Sam Jose, C.A., USA and was getting $ 91517 which comes to Rs. 42,09,782/-; it erred in not granting any amounts under the head future prospects, though the law is well settled that 50% is to be added to the actual salary; it erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, though dependants are four in number and it erred in not granting any amount towards medical expenses though the deceased while undergoing treatment. On the above grounds, the appellants seek to set aside the impugned order. Heard both sides.

2. The facts of the case, briefly, are that the deceased was a postgraduate in Technology and was working as a software engineer in USA. On 18.7.2003, the deceased was coming in a jeep along with others from Chennai to Kurnool and when they reached near Venkatapuram Village on Allagadda - Nandyal Road, at about 10.30 a.m., the lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 4477 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep. The deceased sustained injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The deceased was drawing a salary of $7500 per month and annual income of $91,517, which amounts to Rs. 42,09,782/- approximately. The accident occurred while the deceased was returning from USA via Chennai to Kurnool, where his wife and children were residing.

3. The Court below, considering the pay-stub details (electronic record) of the deceased from January, 2003 to June, 2003, showing the net pay of the deceased as i.e., $5361.25, $5361.25, $4601.87, $4596.88, $4621.87 and $4776.88 respectively, took the average net pay of the deceased as $4886 per month and annual pay of the deceased as $58362 and after deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, arrived at $39088/- as the annual pay of the deceased. Thereafter, the prevailing dollar rate was applied as 45' to convert the amount into Indian currency, and the Court below arrived at $39088 x Rs. 45A = Rs. 17,58,960/- as the income of the deceased. To determine the multiplier with respect to the age of the deceased at 36 years, the Court below relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, which is extracted hereunder:

"...... In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patrica Jean Mahanan and others, AIR 2002 SC 2607, a medical graduate went to America and established himself and became an American. His annual income was 9 lakhs U.S. dollars. He died in India in an accident. He is 48. The multiplier was fixed at "10" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above case, it is held at Paras 20 and 21 as follows:

The purpose to compensate the dependants of the victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of source of their maintenance and as far as possible they may be provided with the means as were available to them before the accident took place. It will be just and fair compensation. But in cases where the amount of compensation may go much higher than the amount providing the same amenities, comforts and facilities and also the way of life, in such circumstances also it may be a case where, while applying the multiplier system, the lesser multiplier may be applied In such cases amount of multiplicand becomes relevant. The intention is not to over compensate.

We therefore,