The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the mathematical formula for computing compensation for loss of dependency, as provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274.

Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - The insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, as excessive, has filed this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) calling in question the judgment and award dated 20.8.2003 passed in M.V.C. No. 4154 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of the Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, (SCCH-20), (for short the M.A.C.T.)

2. The fact that deceased C. Sridhar, aged 40 years as on the date of accident and death was serving as a mechanic in the establishment of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, on a monthly salary of Rs. 5,588, died in an accident that occurred on the intervening night of 177 18.11.2000 involving the motor vehicle being a trailer lorry bearing registration No. KA 01-8211 is not in dispute. The fact that the dependants of the deceased, being the widow, his two minor children and the aged parents claimed compensation of Rs. 12,00,000 in a petition under section 166 of the Act, numbered as M.V.C. No. 4154 of 2000, in which the owner of the offending vehicle arraigned, as respondent No. 1, though served with notice remained absent and was placed ex parte, while the insurer, respondent No, 2, the appellant herein appeared and contested the claim by filing its statement of objections, are also not in dispute.

3. The M.A.C.T., in the premise of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues, recorded evidence of claimant No. 1, the widow as PW 1, as also an eyewitness as PW 2 and marked 11 documents as Exhs. P1 to P11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was tendered. M.A.C.T., appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, laid before it by claimant, recorded a finding of actionable negligence on the driver of the trailer lorry and taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,588, applied the mathematical formula laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274 and assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 9,38,784 to which was added a sum of Rs. 3,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 3,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 3,000 for funeral expenses; totalling to Rs. 9,47,784 as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition until realisation. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, as excessive, the insurer has preferred this appeal.

4. The grievance of the appellant, as contended by its counsel are three-fold. Firstly, that the method adopted by the M.A.C.T. in arriving at future monthly loss of income of Rs. 8,382 is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Devi v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274. Secondly, that M.A.C.T. ought to have taken the future monthly loss of income at Rs. 4,030 and applying multiple 14 ought to have awarded compensation of Rs, 6,77,040 for loss of dependency. Thirdly, that M.A.C.T. was not justified in not effecting statutory deductions towards income tax and professional tax to the multiplicand of Rs. 5,588.

5. The finding of actionable negligence is not in controversy between the parties in this appeal. Hence, there is no necessity to review the said finding.

6. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment and award, the only question for decision making is whether the M.A.C.T. is justified in awarding Rs. 9,38,784 towards loss of dependency in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record?

7. Before proceeding to answer the question, it is useful to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274, which the M.A.C.T. followed while determining compensation towards loss of dependency. The relevant portion at pp. 587-88 is extracted below:

"Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the computa