HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No. 368 of 2005 DATED: .10.2010 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director .. Appellant And Yenamala Varalakshmi and four others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.09.2004 made in M.V.O.P. No. 374 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, whereby the petitioners-claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,62,750/- together with interest at 9% p.a. against their claim of Rs.6,25,000/-. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The facts of the case in brief are that on 29.06.2002, at about 03.45 P.M., while the 1st petitioner and her husband - Y.Kodandam were going on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. AP03 F 6820 and when they reached near Lakshmipuram cross on Chittoor-Piler Road, one APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP10Z 5278 was coming from Piler side towards Chittoor and when Kondandam gave way to the bus to proceed, the driver of the RTC bus while overtaking the motorcycle, turned the bus towards left side and in that process the bus hit the motorcycle and dragged it to some distance, causing severe injuries to Kodandam and the 1st petitioner. Immediately they were shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment and later to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and later to Government Hospital, Vellore where Kodandam succumbed to injures. After the death of the deceased, there is none to look after the welfare of the petitioners. Hence, the claimants filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/-. The respondent-Corporation filed counter before the Tribunal inter alia denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident occurred was only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for trial. During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined besides marking of Exs.A1 to A13 on behalf of the petitioners. RW1 was examined but no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. However, Ex.C1 – Medical report from CMC hospital, Vellore, was marked through the Commissioner. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded the petitioners compensation of Rs.4,62,750/- together with interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the A.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred this appeal. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- A.P.S.R.T.C., the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. The deceased – Kodandam is the husband of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are her minor children whereas petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are her parents-in-law. The evidence of PW1 would go to show that while the husband of the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner were going on Hero Honda Motorcycle, he gave way to the APSRTC Bus which was coming from his read side and while the bus was overtaking the motorcycle, it suddenly turned towards left side and in that process the bus hit the motorcycle and dragged it to some distance causing severe injuries to the 1st petitioner and her husband and further resulting in the death of Kodandam. While so, the evidence of RW1, the driver of the R.T.C. bus, is to the effect that the moment he overtook the motorcycle of Kodandam, he heard the cries of passengers and stopped the bus and came to know that the husband of the 1st petitioner while driving the motorcycle with single hand, skidded with the motorcycle and thereby fell down and sustained injuries. From the evidence of RW1, it can be inferred that the driver of the bus, while overtaking the motorcycle, might have come closer to the motorcycle, and hit the motorcycle and dragged the bike resulting in the accident and the driver of the bus was really unaware of this incident till he was informed by passengers in the bus. This accident might have occurred because of a bit of carelessness though not intentional on the part of the driver of the bus in overtaking the motorcycle. There is any amount of probability for such accident to take place when the driver of the bus is careless in overtaking the motorcycle which results in collision between the vehicles, however careful the motorcyclist may be in riding it. Even in his cross-examination, it is clear that RW1 was punished departmentally for the accident caused by him and he was charged under Ex.A2 - charge sheet in a criminal case with the allegation that he caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus. The second aspect of the matter is that there is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as is evident from Exs.A3 – Postmortem certificate and Ex.A4 – Inquest report. Even though there is no specific evidence on record with regard to the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal, by taking into consideration the age of the deceased, fixed his monthly income at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3000/- per month in view of the fact that he was doing masonry work and earning Rs.130/- per day and in view of his health condition as evidenced by the petitioners and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal i.e. “17” is appropriate as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, the 1st petitioner was granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, which seems to be reasonable. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.4,62,750/- to the petitioners taking into consideration the factors such as age, income, occupation of the deceased, his future prospects, etc. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned Standing Counsel on the above aspects of the matter is not sustainable. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J .10.2010 bcj