HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 4128 OF 2004 AND CORSS OBJECTIONS SR NO. 621 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal has been filed by the APSRTC under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the VII Additional MSJ for COC cum XXI Additional Chief Judge for MACT, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No. 1750 of 2003 filed by the claimants, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of deceased Ram Prakash, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1.5.2003 at about 12.30 PM near Petrol Pump, Ankusapuram, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District when the deceased and others were traveling in seven seater auto bearing No. AP 24 U 7539 and were proceeding towards Bhongir side from Hyderabd , one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 979 of Uppal depot, which came from Bhongir side and going towards Hyderabad side driven by its driver with high speed dashed against the seven seater steering auto. Due to which, the deceased died in the accident. The police, Ghatkesar registered a case in Crime No. 68 of 2003 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 979 by its driver, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2 who is an eye witness to the incident and Exs A1 and A2 the certified copies of FIR and charge sheet in Crime No. 68 of 2003, and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month as a Supervisor in M/s T. Mohan Rao and Company basing on Ex. A-7 and the oral evidence of PW-3 income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month which comes to 60,000/- per annum and for the age of 40 years, the relevant multiplier is 12.79, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,11,600/- . Being aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the claimants preferred Cross-objections (sr) 621 of 2004, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- APSRTC contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurer and owner of the seven seater auto are not necessary parties to the OP. He further submits that the monthly income of the deceased was only Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made on that basis. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that Ex. A7 the salary certificate of Rs. 5,000/- is an after thought and cooked up one and for this reason the evidence of the author of it viz., PW-3 should not have been believed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly taken the multiplier on lower side and wrongly granted less compensation. He further submits that Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards loss of estate, transportation of the dead body, and funeral expenses, therefore, seeks enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. The Tribunal taking into consideration of the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Exs. A1 , A2 and A5 held that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 979 by its driver which dashed the seven seater auto bearing No. AP 24 U 7539 which was coming in opposite direction. As far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PW-3 coupled with Exs A7 and A8 held that the deceased was working as a Supervisor with M/s T. Mohan Rao and Company and was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month and assessed the total loss of dependency at 5,11,600/- by applying multiplier 12.79. The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and all. Hence, I feel it just and proper to grant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate following the judgment of the Apex Court reported in NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYAL SINGH[1] wherein the Apex Court held thus: “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’. Hence, claims Tribunal is appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a just compensation of Rs. 5,21,600/- under all the heads, as stated above. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed and the Cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed awarding compensation of Rs.5,21,600/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. The appellant-APSRTC is liable to pay the said compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.% per annum on the enhanced compensation. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs. 5,11,600/-, the claimants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.08.2010 KA [1] 2003(1) ALD –1(SC)