THE HON’’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1889 OF 2008 JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.03.2008 in O.P.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), (F.T.C.), for short ‘the Tribunal’, Nizamabad, wherein the claim of the respondents herein was allowed- in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. The respondents herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of Gandham Yellavva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.12.2004. The claimants are the sons of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was walking by the side of the road in Nizamabad and that an APSRTC bus bearing No.A.P.11.Z.3214, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against her, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died while undergoing treatment in District Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, on 16.12.2004. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 60 years and was an agriculturist and was also a vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month that the claimants have spent about Rs.20,000/- in connection with treatment of the deceased. The APSRTC filed a counter before Tribunal opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.11.Z.3214 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what just amoujnt and against whom? 3. To what relief? PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the APSRTC. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, an award was passed for a total sum of 2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred the present appeal. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, is not seriously challenged. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased, who was 60 years old lady, at Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence in proof of the same. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, would contend that the deceased was an agriculturist, and also a vegetable vendor and the income taken by the Tribunal into consideration at Rs.3,000/- per month is just and reasonable and in fact the Tribunal has applied a lesser multiplier ‘8’, though, in fact, the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and anotheri[1] is ‘9’. The evidence on record would go to show that the deceased was not only an agricultural coolie, but also a vegetable vendor. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimants, it may not be possible for a vegetable vendor to produce documentary evidence in support of the income from vegetable vending. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was both agricultural coolie and also a vegetable vendor, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses the Tribunal has taken the contribution of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier ‘8’ and arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-. In fact, as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased who was 60 years is ‘9’ and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is only ‘8’. It is considered neither just nor reasonable to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. The other amounts of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate are also held to be just and reasonable. In fact, no separate amount is awarded by the Tribunal for the medical expenses incurred by the claimants in connection with the treatment of the deceased, who died while undergoing treatment in the hospital on the next date of the accident. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal represents just and fair compensation and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by the Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th July, 2010 PNV [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)