JUDGMENT B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI,J. - Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5. 2. This appeal is preferred by the respondents No.1 to 3/APSRTC, represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, and the Depot Manager, Waltair Depot, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam (in short the APSRTC), U/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the M.V.Act), challenging the order and decree dtd. 24/7/2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1333/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam (in short, the Tribunal). The learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.51,64,452.00 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the death of Gujju Yellayya Reddy in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24/12/2010. 3. The present Appellants are the respondents No.1 to 3 respectively in MVOP No.1333/2011 before the learned Tribunal; The respondents No.1 to 5 are the claimants; The 6th respondent in the appeal is the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7450. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 24/12/2010 at about 13.30 p.m., the deceased Gujju Yellayya Reddy (in short, the deceased) was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 L 7279 from his office to residence to have lunch; when he reached a place opposite to Sivalayam Temple, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, RTC Bus No.AP 10 Z 7450 belonging to Waltair Depot came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn; and dashed the deceased vehicle; the deceased fell down and died on the spot; he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital in 108 ambulance, wherein he was declared dead; hence, the claimants/respondents filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.47,60,000.00. 5. The Appellants and the 6th respondent contested the claim petition by filing counters; the Appellants and the 6th respondent denied their liability to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased viz., Gujju Yellayya Reddy, S/o.Appala Narasayya Reddy, died in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP 10 Z 7450 (APSRTC Bus) driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. Whether the deceased viz., Gujju Yellayya Reddy, S/o.Appala Narasayya Reddy, died in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP 10 Z 7450 (APSRTC Bus) driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants/respondents, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked. On behalf of the Appellants/respondents No.1 to 3, R.W-1 was examined and no documents were marked. 8. The Tribunal recorded finding on issue No.1 that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 6th respondent. 9. On issues No.2 and 3, the tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 53 years and his gross income as Rs.33,198.00 per month and Rs.3,98,376.00 (Rs.33,198.00 x 12) per annum. The learned Tribunal considering the number of dependants as five, deducted 1/5 of income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.33,198.00 (Rs.41,498.00 8,300). The learned Tribunal also considered the future prospectus on the established income of deceased @ 15% as per the principles laid in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,58,132.00 (Rs.3,98,376.00 + 59,756). The learned Tribunal applied multiplier 11' as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 . considering the age of deceased in the group between 50 to 55 years. Thus, the learned Tribunal arrived loss of dependency as Rs.4,58,132.00 x 11 = Rs.50,39,452.00. 10. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.1,00,000.00 to the 1st claimant towards spouse consortium being the wife of deceased and also awarded Rs.25,000.00 towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.51,64,452.00 (Rs.50,39,452.00 + 1,25,000). 11. The details of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads discussed above are as under: 12. Thus, the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal as per order and decree dtd. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.51,64,452.00 (Rs.50,39,452.00 + 1,25,000). 11. The details of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads discussed above are as under: 12. Thus, the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal as per order and decree dtd. 24/7/2013, holding that the appellants and respondent No.6 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to a tune of Rs.51,64,452.00 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition i.e., 10/3/2011, till the date of payment, to the petitioners No.1 to 3 and 5, (petition against petitioner No.4 abated, as he died pendente lite), with a direction to pay court fee on total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are challenging the award on two grounds. The first ground is that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the net income of the deceased as Rs.25,251.00 per month, instead of Rs.41,498.00 per month. The second ground is that the learned Tribunal awarded excessive compensation by deducting 1/5 instead of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as per the principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and that he would further submit that the interest cannot be awarded more than 6% p.a. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.41,498.00 per month after deducting income tax and profession tax as per rules and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation under various heads and the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is justifiable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. 15. We have considered the above submissions advanced by respective counsel and also perused the material available on record. 16. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others. 15. We have considered the above submissions advanced by respective counsel and also perused the material available on record. 16. The following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the impugned award suffers from any illegality so as to warrant our interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, on the grounds that the learned Tribunal awarded excess compensation including rate of interest?" 17. P O I N T: The contention of the appellants is that the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.48,698.00 per month and after all deductions like GPF, LIC, festival advance, income tax, co-operative society loan, the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.25,251.00 as net salary, and the same has to be considered as monthly income of deceased. 18. It is an admitted fact that there are five dependents as on the date of death of the deceased and also at the time of filing the claim petition. Subsequently, the 4th claimant i.e., father of the deceased died pending claim petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others held that "the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6", the learned Tribunal deducted 1/5 instead of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal committed error in this regard. Consequently, the loss of dependency must be re-assessed in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. 19. Perusal of Ex.A-7 certified copy of pay slip of the deceased would show that his gross salary was Rs.48,698.00 per month, and after deducting income tax and profession tax, it comes to Rs.41,498.00 per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others held that the word 'actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax'. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others held that the word 'actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax'. In the light of above factual and legal context, we are of the considered opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants do not hold any force and devoid of any merit. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the monthly income of deceased fixed by the learned Tribunal. 20. In this case, there are five dependents depend on the income of the deceased. Therefore, of the income shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.41,498.00 10,374 = Rs.31,124.00, and the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,73,488.00 (Rs.31,124.00 x 12). 21. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the claimants are entitled to future prospects on the established income of the deceased. In this case, the deceased was working as Line Inspector in APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and he was aged 53 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 15%, as the deceased had a permanent job and the deceased was aged between 50 to 60 years. Thus, the future prospects @ 15% on the established income of deceased would be Rs.3,73,488.00x15/100 = Rs.56,023.00 and total comes to Rs.4,29,511.00 (Rs.3,73,488.00 + 56,023). 22. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, the multiplier applicable is 11' as the deceased is aged 53 years, fall under the category of 50 to 55 years'. Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs.4,29,511.00x11 =Rs.47,24,621.00. 23. The claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000.00 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000.00 towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000.00 loss of spouse consortium to the 1st petitioner as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. In this case, the claimants No.2 and 3 are entitled to parental consortium @ Rs.40,000.00 each, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. In this case, the claimants No.2 and 3 are entitled to parental consortium @ Rs.40,000.00 each, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 . and total would be Rs.1,50,000.00 (Rs.70,000.00 + 80,000). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.48,74,621.00 (Rs.47,24,621.00 + 1,50,000) towards just compensation as shown in the table. 24. So far as the grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of payment is concerned, we do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 25. In this case, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,64,452.00 towards compensation to the claimants. After re-assessing the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to Rs.48,74,621.00 only towards just compensation. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,89,831.00 (Rs.51,64,452.00 48,74,621) excess to the claimants towards compensation. 26. In the light of above discussion, we find that the appeal is liable to be allowed partly by modifying the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dtd. 24/7/2013 passed in MVOP 1333/2011, to the extent holding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.48,74,621.00 towards just compensation, instead of Rs.51,64,452.00, with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 27. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal dtd. 24/7/2013 passed in MVOP 1333/2011, to the extent holding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.48,74,621.00 towards just compensation, instead of Rs.51,64,452.00 as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Out of the said compensation amount of Rs.48,74,621.00, the 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,55,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. Out of the said compensation amount of Rs.48,74,621.00, the 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,55,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The claimants No.2 and 3 being the children of deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,42,000.00 (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) each, and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon. The 5th claimant being mother of deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,35,621.00 (Rupees Six Lakhs, Thirty Five Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty One only), and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.