JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. Challenging the compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for the death of one P. Dattatreya in a lorry accident as low and inadequate, the claimants filed the instant MACMA.

2. On 13.09.2006 at about 6.50 A.M. on Kodumuru-Kurnool Road near Mango garden of Nallreddy when the deceased P.Dattatreya was proceeding along with his family members in Qualis bearing Registration No. AP-27-AB-7000, a SRMT lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-B-6991 being driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed the Qualis. In the resultant accident the deceased died on the spot and the petitioners sustained injuries. It is alleged that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the lorry driver. It is further averred that the deceased was young person of 24 years and earning about Rs.90,000/- while working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited and due to his sudden demise the petitioners, who are his parents and brother, lost their dependency. MVOP No. 101/2008 came to be filed by the petitioners against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending SRMT lorry, and the respondents 4 to 6, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the Qualis and Rs.50.00 lakhs was claimed as compensation. The respondents 1, 4 & 5 remained ex-parte. The respondents 2 & 3 contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the driver of Qualis vehicle and hence, they are not liable for the claim. Per contra, 6th respondent in his written statement contended that the accident was occurred due to the fault of lorry driver and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 alone are liable for the claim.

During trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits A1 to A20 and X1 to X5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the fault of 1st respondent, who was the driver of the offending lorry. Then regarding compensation, the Tribunal taking into evidence of PWs 1 to 3, held that the deceased was working in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited. Then by taking Ex.X2-bunch of pay slips which contain the last pay drawn by the deceased in the month of August 2006 before his death, the Tribunal fixed his monthly salary at Rs.38,850/-. It arrived his gross annual income at Rs.4,66,200/-. From this, it deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. From the remaining amount of Rs.2,33,100/- the Tribunal deducted 30% towards income tax and held that the net annual contribution of the deceased to his family was Rs.1,63,170/-.

Then taking the age of the 1st claimant, who is the mother of deceased, the Tribunal selected ‘13’ as multiplier and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.21,21,210/- (1,63,170 x 13). Then it granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.21,40,210/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3. Eventually the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. against the respondents 4 to 6.

Hence, the M.A.C.M.A.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the insurance company-3rd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the Tribunal has not taken the correct earnings of the deceased in spite of the cogent oral and documentary evidence; the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the salary of the deceased; it deduced ½ instead of 1/3rd from the gross earnings of