compensation = The evidence of P.W.3 shows that he was working as a Branch Manager and that the deceased was issued agent licence on 03.03.2008 and he received Rs.40,517/- towards commission for the business done during that period. The counsel for the appellants contends that between March 2008 and November 2008 itself the deceased could get the commission of Rs.40,517/-, which would show that he would, in all probability, earn huge amounts in future. The said fact glares from the evidence of P.W.3 and the same cannot be ignored. = The income of Rs.40,517/- is only for a period of eight months i.e. March 2008 to November 2008. Since the income of the deceased is stated to be only Rs.40,517/-, he would not be liable for tax, as the income would not exceed taxable limits. If Rs.40,517/- is taken for calculation of the income of the deceased, the monthly income would come to Rs.40,517/- x 1/8 = Rs.5,064/- and the annual income would come to Rs.5,064/- x 12 = Rs.60,768/-. If the future hike at 25% is added, the annual income would come to Rs.60,768/- + (Rs.60,768/- x 25% = Rs.15,192/-) = Rs.75,960/-. Since the claimants are four in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION . Hence, after deducting 1/4th, the income would come to Rs.75,960/- - (Rs.75,960/- x = Rs.18,990/-) = Rs.56,961/-. The age of the deceased, being 41 years, the multiplier relevant as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMAs case (2 supra) is 14. Hence, the loss of future income to the claimants would come to Rs.56,961 x 14 = Rs.7,97,454/-. Apart from the above, following the decision of the Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHIs case (supra) Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the first claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,97,454/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.8,67,454/-, which is rounded off to Rs.8,68,000/-.

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI   

MACMA.No.952 of 2013 

19-12-2017

J.Padma and others. APPELLANTS     

D.Satyanarayana and another... RESPONDENT   

Counsel for Appellants  : MR. P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY     

Counsel for Respondents: --NONE APPEARED--   

<GIST   :

>HEAD NOTE:   

? Cases referred:
1.2013 ACJ 2512 
2.(2009) 6 SCC 121

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI   

MACMA.No.952 of 2013 

JUDGMENT:     

       This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the
claimants before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the
V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Sessions Judge  cum  XIX
Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad in OP.No.717
of 2009 dated 22.12.2012 on the grounds that the Court below did not
award appropriate compensation and failed to see that the deceased in
the initial year itself has earned Rs.40,000/- per annum, as reflected in
Ex.A4, and his future income would have increased by 3 to 4 folds in
future.

2.      Heard the counsel for the appellants. None appears for the
respondents.

3.      The counsel for the appellants contends that apart from being a
toddy tapper, the deceased was working as LIC agent and the
evidence of P.W.3 would suffice to conclude that the deceased was
making very good earnings. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that he was 
working as a Branch Manager and that the deceased was issued agent  
licence on 03.03.2008 and he received Rs.40,517/- towards
commission for the business done during that period. The counsel for
the appellants contends that between March 2008 and November 2008   
itself the deceased could get the commission of Rs.40,517/-,
which would show that he would, in all probability, earn huge amounts
in future. The said fact glares from the evidence of P.W.3 and the
same cannot be ignored. 
4.      The Court below, however, considered the income of the
deceased as Rs.15,000/- but, ultimately, fixed the notional income of
Rs.4,000/-. There is absolutely no basis on which the Court below
arrived at the said amount. The evidence with regard to the deceased
taking up the avocation of toddy tapper apart from being LIC agent is,
however, not confidence inspiring. The deceased is stated to be a
graduate and hence, his avocation as LIC agent cant be believed but
his avocation as toddy tapper does not inspire any confidence, much
less, in the light of the fact that no cogent evidence was adduced to
prove the said fact. However, as already observed, the approach of the
Court below in not taking the annual income of Rs.40,000/-, as the
income of the deceased is not sustainable. In the first year itself,
the deceased could earn Rs.40,517/- and in the near future, he would
definitely earn more than the said amount, as the evidence of P.W.3
shows that the deceased had sufficient potential to make such
earnings.

5.      The counsel for the appellants also relied on a decision of the
High Court of Madras in PARAMESWARI v. A. KUMAR , which is   
rendered in respect of the death of LIC agent. The Court took the
commission as Rs.25,000/- per month and deducted 15% for income 
tax and 1/3rd towards personal expenditure. In this case, Rs.40,000/-
can be taken as the income of the deceased by ignoring the fraction of
Rs.517/-.

6.      The counsel also relied on a latest decision of the Supreme
Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI       
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 and batch dated 31.10.2017]
to contend that the future hike in the income is also to be considered
and the deceased, being 41 years, the future hike has to be 25% as
per the said decision.

7.      The income of Rs.40,517/- is only for a period of eight months
i.e. March 2008 to November 2008. Since the income of the deceased 
is stated to be only Rs.40,517/-, he would not be liable for tax, as the
income would not exceed taxable limits. If Rs.40,517/- is taken for
calculation of the income of the deceased, the monthly income would
come to Rs.40,517/- x 1/8 = Rs.5,064/- and the annual income would 
come to Rs.5,064/- x 12 = Rs.60,768/-. If the future hike at 25% is
added, the annual income would come to Rs.60,768/- + (Rs.60,768/- 
x 25% = Rs.15,192/-) = Rs.75,960/-. Since the claimants are four in
number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure as
per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI   
TRANSPORT CORPORATION . Hence, after deducting 1/4th, the      
income would come to Rs.75,960/- - (Rs.75,960/- x  = Rs.18,990/-)
= Rs.56,961/-. The age of the deceased, being 41 years, the multiplier
relevant as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMAs  
case (2 supra) is 14. Hence, the loss of future income to the
claimants would come to Rs.56,961 x 14 = Rs.7,97,454/-. Apart from
the above, following the decision of the Supreme Court in PRANAY
SETHIs case (supra) Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the first claimant
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of
estate and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.
Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.7,97,454/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- =
Rs.8,67,454/-, which is rounded off to Rs.8,68,000/-.

8.      Hence, the award of the Court below is modified as indicated
above with proportionate costs. The apportionment of compensation
shall be made in the same proportion as made by the Court below.
The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the
compensation awarded shall carry the interest at the rate and from the
date specified by the Court below.

        The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel,
the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________ 
T. RAJANI, J
December 19, 2017