JUDGMENT :

The 2nd and 3rd respondents/insurer filed this appeal challenging the propriety of decree and award dated 05.10.2007 in O.P.No.1215 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2004 at about 7.30 P.M. while Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased was returning home on foot after the day’s business, on the highway of Hanmakonda-Hyderabad, at Ghanpur, an auto bearing registration No. AP-15-W-4116 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed and caused his instantaneous death. The wife and children of Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased pleading loss of dependency, filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal after considering the material and evidence on record, awarded Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and held all the respondents are liable to pay compensation.

4. In this appeal, the insurer contested that the Tribunal erred in considering Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier employed in assessing the compensation is improper.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants pleaded that though the petitioners claimed that Agulla Narsimhulu/deceased was doing business in vessels and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. Further future prospects of the income and the compensation under conventional heads were not considered. Hence, prayed for granting just compensation.

6. In the above rival claims, the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?”

7. In determining the compensation in death cases, the foundational factors to be considered are the age and income of the deceased.

8. As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged 33 years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month from the vessels business. No independent evidence is placed to prove this aspect. However, considering the entries in the post mortem report/Ex.A-4, the Tribunal has believed the age of deceased as 33 years by the date of accident. Further contemplating the possible income earning capacity at the age of deceased the Tribunal on an average Rs.100/- per day is taken as earnings and believed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The appellants/insurer except raising objection failed to place any fact or circumstance much less any material to consider otherwise. Wherefore, the respondents/claimants pleaded occupation of the deceased remained undisturbed. Nevertheless, having regard to the wages of manual labour at relevant point of time, the tribunal considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- is found reasonable.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 860. held that in computing the loss of dependency, the future prospects of income of a self-employed or on fixed salary shall also be included. As the deceased was below 40 years of age by the date of accident, 40% of the future prospects of income shall be added. Resultantly, the monthly income and annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) and Rs.50,400/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12) respectively.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), held that where there are 2 to 3 dependents, 1/3rd of the total income is to be deducted towards personal consumption. Accordingly, (1/3rd of Rs.50,400) = Rs.16,800/- shall be deducted from the annual income of Rs.50,400/-, thereby the annual contribution of deceased to the appellants/petitioners would be Rs.33,600/- (Rs.50,400/- minus Rs.16,800/-).

11. With regard to multiplier, the law is well settled that in claims on contest, the multiplier scale scheduled in the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla