Hon'ble HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.1997, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.122 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.

2. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The respondents 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Josuva, who died in the accident, which occurred on 17.11.1993 and the car in which the deceased travelled was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The car was proceeding from Bangalore to Tirunelveli and the accident took place at Kayatharu. The car capsized and resulted in the death of the deceased. The legal representatives of the deceased filed M.C.O.P.No.122 of 1996, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Aggrieved against the said order dated 19.11.1997, the appellant Insurance Company filed this appeal.

3. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed error in fixing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. It is submitted that there is no categorical evidence to establish that the deceased earned a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that utmost a sum of Rs.4,000/- could be taken as monthly salary and 1/3th could be deducted and the compensation could be arrived at.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 did not seriously dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He fairly states that there is no evidence that the deceased received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly pay. In any event, he submits that as he was an income tax assessee, the Tribunal took a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly pay. He submits that he has no objection for taking a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly pay, as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant. But the learned Counsel for the claimants submits that 1/3rd deduction to arrive at the loss of dependency is not correct and the deductions could be only 1/4th from the monthly earnings. It is submitted that since there are five dependants, the deductions should be 1/4th from the monthly earnings as per the decision made in Smt.Sarala Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the Tribunal has erroneously adopted multiplier"13", while the proper multiplier is "14", since the age of the deceased is 45 years at the time of the accident. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 relies on the decision of the Smt.Sarala Verma case referred to above in this regard.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The claimants themselves agreed to reduce the monthly earnings to Rs.4,000/-. The only controversy is relating to the deductions to be made in the monthly earnings. As per Smt.Sarala Verma case referred to by the learned Counsel for the claimants, it makes clear that if the number of dependants are more, the deductions should be less.

7. According to the said judgment, I am of the view that the learned Counsel for the respondents is correct in his submission that the deductions should be 1/4th from the monthly earnings. Hence, the loss of dependency is Rs.3,000/- per month.

8. The next question is the multiplier. Though, initially the learned Counsel for the appellant resisted for using the multiplier "14" instead of "13", he did not seriously dispute after going though the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Smt.Sarala Verma case.

9. Under these circumstances, the following compensation is arrived at Rs.3,000x12x14=Rs.5,04,000/- Regarding the award of Rs.26,000/- towards loss of earning and for loss of love and affection, there is no dispute by the appellant. Hence, a sum of Rs.26,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document