IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.445 of 2007 Between: The APSRTC, rep., by its Depot Manager, Bhadrachalam & another. … Appellants And Sk. Fathimun & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri P. Krishna Reddy for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri K. Murali Krishna for Sri P. Veera Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.445 of 2007 ORDER:- This appeal arises out of award dated 09.11.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.1029 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam (for short, “the Tribunal”). The respondents in the above O.P., who are the Depot Manager and Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), are the appellants. They have filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the abovementioned award, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,36,782/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum in favour of the respondents, who are the legal heirs of the deceased - Sk. Abdul Ghani. The deceased was hit by a bus bearing registration No.AP 11Z 1886 belonging to the appellants on 24.04.2005 at about 10.20 hours when he was proceeding on his motor cycle near a place called Raghavendra Filling Station on Khammam-Wyra R&B Road. The respondents have filed the above O.P. claiming a sum of Rs.13 lakhs towards compensation. According to them, the deceased was a driver in HMV Grade-I of RWS (PR) Sub-Division, Khammam and the Secretary of the A.P. Drivers’ Union Association, Khammam. The Tribunal framed three issues. Under issue No.1, it found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellants. Under issue No.2, it held that the salary certificate, Ex.A5, produced by the respondents-claimants showed that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.9,806/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal has determined his monthly contribution to the family as Rs.6,537/- per month and Rs.78,488/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10.45 and arrived at a sum of Rs.8,19,782/- as the loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. At the hearing, Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the status of the deceased as driver of the Panchayat Raj Department was not established and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the salary certificate produced by the respondents-claimants in computing the loss of income of the deceased. I have carefully considered this submission in the light of the pleadings and the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. PW.1, the wife of the deceased and claimant No.1, in her chief- examination specifically stated that her husband was working as driver in HMV Grade-I of RWS (PR) Sub-Division, Khammam and was also the Secretary of the A.P. Drivers’ Union Association, Khammam. She got Ex.A5, salary certificate issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS (PR) Sub-Division, Khammam, marked to show that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.12,109/-. In the cross- examination, no suggestions were put to the witness that her statement that the deceased was a driver was incorrect and that he was not earning the salary as certified in Ex.A5. In the absence of even such suggestions, leave alone any evidence adduced by the appellants, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 by relying on Ex.A5. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the award of the Tribunal assessing the compensation as above. Indeed, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 10.45, while the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] held that if the age of the deceased was between 41 and 45, the multiplier of 14 is required to be adopted. If such a multiplier is adopted, the respondents will get much more compensation. But for the fact that the respondents have not filed an appeal, this would have been a case for further enhancement of compensation. For the abovementioned reasons, the appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, MACMAMP No.989 of 2007 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.02.2010 ES [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121