JUDGMENT : 1. The United India Insurance Company has filed these two appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 26th November 2011 made in MVC Nos.4525 and 4665 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) with regard to the exorbitant quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been questioned in these two appeals and common evidence has been let in. Hence, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 in MFA No.4491/2012 filed a claim petition contending that the daughter of claimants 1 and 2 and daughter-in-law of claimants 3 and 4 Smt.Seema went to Honeymoon with her husband Sri. R. Narasimharaju to Himachal Pradesh. On 19-11-2008, while they were proceeding in a car bearing Registration No.DL-01/YB-3415 towards Manali on NH-21, near 9th Mile Stone, Pandoh of Mandi District, Himachal Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Car, the driver of the said car lost control over the vehicle and fell into 200 meters depth on river side on the right side of the said road. Due to the said accident, Narasimharaju and driver of the said car died on the spot. But Seema, wife the deceased Narasimharaju sustained severe head injury and multiple fatal injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Zonal Hospital at Mandi. After first aid, she was shifted to PGI hospital at Chandigarh. After initial treatment and in order to give better treatment, she was shifted to Apollo hospital at Bangalore by Air ambulance from Chandigarh to Bangalore. Further, she was shifted to Sharavathi hospital at Vijayanagar in Bangalore on 08-12-2008. In spite of the best treatment, she succumbed to the said injuries on 08-02-2009. In the claim petition, it was contended that deceased Seema was aged about 27 years, she was an advocate by profession and also completed LLM Post Graduate Degree. She had passed Gazetted Probationers preliminary examination held in the year 2008. She was practicing in the chambers of D. Srinivasa Murthy and Associates, advocates and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. The family has lost the earning member and love and affection of their daughter. She had passed Gazetted Probationers preliminary examination held in the year 2008. She was practicing in the chambers of D. Srinivasa Murthy and Associates, advocates and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. The family has lost the earning member and love and affection of their daughter. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 5. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MFA No.4492/2012 are the father, mother and brother of deceased R. Narasimharaju. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased Narasimharaju was working as a Tahasildar at Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District. He married Smt. Seema on 09-01-2008, thereafter, they went to Honeymoon to Himachal Pradesh. Due to unfortunate accident occurred on 19-11-2008, he died on the spot. At the time of accident, he was aged about 30 years, working as Tahasildar at Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District and getting salary of Rs.15,310/- p.m. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. 6. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance. The first respondent in the written statement admitted the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased. However, he had denied the rash and negligent driving of the Car. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. Further, as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force. Hence, the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants. 7. The insurance company in their written statement denied the entire averments made in the claim petitions and also contended that the claim petitions are not maintainable. However admitted that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 9. The claimants in order to prove their case, father of deceased Seema got examined as P.W.1 and father of deceased R. Narasimharaju got examined as P.W.2. The advocate D. Srinivasa Murthy was examined as P.W.3. Sri. H.R. Bharath, Tahasildar of Koppa was examined as P.W.4 and Chief Accountant of Executive Airways Pvt. Ltd. was examined as P.W.5 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined, nor has any document been marked. 10. The advocate D. Srinivasa Murthy was examined as P.W.3. Sri. H.R. Bharath, Tahasildar of Koppa was examined as P.W.4 and Chief Accountant of Executive Airways Pvt. Ltd. was examined as P.W.5 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined, nor has any document been marked. 10. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration police records, copy of the complaint and charge sheet held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the car, the accident had occurred. Both the husband and wife died in the accident. The claimants in MVC No.4665/2009 are the father, mother and brother of deceased and the claimants in MVC No.4525/2009 are father, mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Seema. Hence, they are entitled for compensation. 11. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in MVC No.4525/2009, the Tribunal taking into consideration income of the deceased Seema as Rs.9,000/- p.m., held that since she was a married daughter, father and mother and mother-in-law and father-in-law are not the dependants of the deceased. However, they are entitled for loss to the estate. Hence, the Tribunal taking into consideration 1/4th of her income i.e., Rs.2,250/- p.m., as loss of dependency as she was aged about 27 years, applying the multiplier 17 has awarded a sum of Rs.4,59,000/- towards loss to the estate and a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards medical expenditure; and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards Air Ambulance charges for shifting the injured from Chandigarh Hospital to Bangalore Hospital. Further, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, a sum of Rs.20,19,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 12. Insofar as the claimants in MVC No.4665/23009 are concerned, deceased R. Narasimharaju was a KAS officer, working as Tahasildar at Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur district drawing a salary of Rs.15,310/- p.m. At the time of death, he was aged about 30 years, he had 30 long years of service. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.15,310/- p.m., adding 50% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.15,310/- p.m., adding 50% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and other judgments, deducting Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure and taking into consideration loss of dependency as Rs.15,310/- p.m., applying the multiplier 17 awarded a sum of Rs.30,82,440/- towards loss of dependency and sum of Rs.80,000/- towards transportation of dead body; a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, a sum of Rs.32,22,440/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the insurance policy of the said Car was in force, as on the date of accident. The liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. The insurance company being aggrieved by the exorbitant quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed these appeals. 13. Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The father and mother of deceased Seema cannot claim to be the dependants of the deceased, since she is a married daughter. No document has been produced to show that they are depending upon the income of the deceased Seema. The monthly income of Rs.9,000/- taken by the Tribunal is higher side. Though Sri. D. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate in his evidence has stated that he was paying salary of Rs.12,000/-, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The accident occurred in the year 2008. A sum of Rs.4,20,000/- awarded towards the medical expenditure is higher side, no document has been produced to show that they have spent sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards medical expenditure. Further a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- awarded towards air lifting charges from Chandigarh to Bangalore is without any legal documents. Except producing the invoice at Ex.P27 and the receipt at Ex.P28, some of the columns of the receipt are left blank. No document has been produced to establish the air lifting charges. The cheque number and date also not mentioned in the receipt. There is no document produced to show that injured was air lifted to Bangalore and they have paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards air lifting charges. 14. No document has been produced to establish the air lifting charges. The cheque number and date also not mentioned in the receipt. There is no document produced to show that injured was air lifted to Bangalore and they have paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards air lifting charges. 14. Insofar as the claimants in MFA No.4492/2012 are concerned, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Further, adding 50% towards future prospects is also contrary to law. No document has been produced to show that he would get promotion in immediate future. Deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure is contrary to law. No document has been produced to show that father, mother and brother are the dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards his personal expenditure. Hence sought for modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by dismissing the claim petitions. 15. On the other hand, Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M. Vinayakeerthi, advocate appearing for the claimants argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the occurrence of the accident, and death of the young couple is not in dispute. At the time of death, deceased Seema was aged about 27 years, she was an advocate by profession and also obtained LLM Degree. She has also passed Gazetted Probationers preliminary examination. The monthly income of Rs.9,000/- taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The Tribunal has not awarded any dependency to the claimants, however, the Tribunal has awarded only loss to the estate taking the savings as Rs.2,250/- p.m., and applying the multiplier 17, awarded a sum of Rs.4,59,000/- towards loss to the estate. So far as Air lifting is concerned, the payment has been made through Cheques to the Executive Airways Private Limited. A sum of Rs.9,90,000/- has been paid through cheque of ICICI Bank, whereas Rs.1,10,000/- has been paid through the cheque of Union Bank of India in favour of Executive Airways Private Limited, Bombay. These are the public documents, which can be examined by the insurance company at any time. Immediately, after the accident, the injured person was shifted to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi, thereafter she was shifted to PGI hospital at Chandigarh, after three days she was shifted to Apollo hospital at Bangalore on 22-11-2008. These are the public documents, which can be examined by the insurance company at any time. Immediately, after the accident, the injured person was shifted to the Zonal Hospital, Mandi, thereafter she was shifted to PGI hospital at Chandigarh, after three days she was shifted to Apollo hospital at Bangalore on 22-11-2008. Thereafter she was shifted to Sharavathi hospital at Viajhayanagar and she succumbed to injuries on 8-2-2009. The medical bills are supported by the prescriptions. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has awarded just and fair compensation. 16. Insofar as MFA No.4492/2012 is concerned, the deceased was working as a Tahasildar at Koppa and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,310/-. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting professional tax and 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure as he was aged about 30 years, applying the multiplier 17 awarded a just and fair compensation. The family has lost the bread earner. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has awarded just and fair compensation and hence sought for dismissal of both the appeals. 17. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in these two appeals is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned. 18. The specific contention of the appellant is that a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- awarded towards medical expenditure and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- awarded towards air ambulance charges in respect of deceased Seema is contrary to law. The main contention is that Ex.P27 and Ex.P28 do not disclose the payment in respect of air lifting of the injured to the Bangalore through Air ambulance. However, the documents produced by the claimants clearly disclose that for further treatment, the injured was shifted to Sagar Apollo hospital at Bangalore on 22-11-2008. While admitting the injured to the Apollo hospital, the doctors have noticed the treatment given at Mandi hospital, PGI Hospital at Chandigarh and also shifting the injured through air ambulance. The Chief Accounts Officer of Executive Airways Private Limited was examined as P.W.5 and in his evidence he has clearly stated that on the request made by the claimants, the service was provided for air lifting the patient from Chandigarh to Bangalore. The payment has been made by two different cheques for Rs.9,90,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- each. The Chief Accounts Officer of Executive Airways Private Limited was examined as P.W.5 and in his evidence he has clearly stated that on the request made by the claimants, the service was provided for air lifting the patient from Chandigarh to Bangalore. The payment has been made by two different cheques for Rs.9,90,000/- and Rs.1,10,000/- each. Even though no details are written in the invoice as well as receipt, the air lifting of the injured and payment made through cheques cannot be disputed and these are public documents which can be cross-verified by the insurance company. A sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards medical bills is supported by the prescriptions and other documents. However, with regard to income is concerned, no document has been produced to show that she was drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Though Sri. D. Srinivasa Murthy was examined as P.W.3, no document has been produced to show that he was paying salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. The accident occurred in the year 2008. Taking into consideration the qualification and the profession of deceased Seema, it is appropriate to reckon the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m., and taking 1/4th of the said income as loss to estate, applying the multiplier 17, the claimants are the entitled for compensation of Rs.3,57,000/- towards loss to estate as against Rs.4,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded in all other heads is in accordance with law. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.19,17,000/- as against Rs.20,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 19. Insofar as compensation awarded in MVC No.4665/2009 is concerned, the deceased was a Government Employee getting fixed salary. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, reckoning the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,310/-, adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure and also deducting Rs.2,400/- p.a., towards professional tax, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation of Rs.32,22,440/-. I find no infirmity of irregularity in the said finding. The Tribunal taking into consideration judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA case (Supra), deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure applying he appropriate multiplier awarded just and fair compensation which do not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, I pas the following: ORDER MFA No.4491/2012 is allowed in part. The Tribunal taking into consideration judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA case (Supra), deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure applying he appropriate multiplier awarded just and fair compensation which do not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, I pas the following: ORDER MFA No.4491/2012 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 26th November 2011 made in MVC Nos.4525 and 4665 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,17,000/- as against Rs.20,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. MFA No.4492/2012 is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal, for disbursement.