THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2144 of 2011 And C.M.A. No. 654 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the common award dated 22.10.2003 in M.O.P.Nos.543 and 570 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam. In M.O.P.No.543 of 2001, the application was filed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Vara Prasad, aged about 23 years, who was said to be a mechanic, in a motor accident. In M.O.P.No.570 of 2001, the application was filed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Venkata Ramana, aged about 23 years, who was said to be a driver, in the same motor accident. According to the case of the claimants, both the deceased have gone to Sabarimalai and came to Tirupati and while they were going in the auto bearing No.AP-03-2067 to go to Renigunta on 03.01.2001, the RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7945 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which both the deceased died. The 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are the owners of the RTC bus and they are liable to pay compensation. The respondents contended that there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The quantum of compensation and the dependency of the claimants are disputed. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the bus and granted compensation of Rs.1,75,400/- in the M.O.P.No.543 of 2001 and Rs.1,53,480/- in M.O.P.No.570 of 2001. Aggrieved by the said common award, the claimants in M.O.P.No.570 of 2001 filed the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2144 of 2011 for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the Corporation filed the other appeal in C.M.A.No.654 of 2004 questioning the liability in M.O.P.No.543 of 2001. So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, the evidence on record does not show any such material and from the material available on record and the evidence of P.Written statement.1 and 2, the lower Tribunal has specifically come to the conclusion that the auto came to the extreme left side at the station and the bus came and hit the auto. The lower Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the driver of the bus was also found fault by the management and he was punished. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the claim of the respondents that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto cannot be considered. So far as the claim of the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2144 of 2011 is concerned, the lower Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and found that there was no proof of earning capacity of Rs.2,500/- per month and also found that any salary certificate is not produced and, therefore, fixed the contribution at Rs.1,000/- per month. Evidently, the lower Tribunal has taken his earning capacity as Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants cannot contend that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month. It is also not proved by any positive evidence or by examining the employer. However, the deceased is unmarried and the age of the mother was taken as 45 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘14’ in view of the judgment in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. Hence, the contribution comes to Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.1,200/- x 14). The lower Tribunal has also granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the total compensation for which the claimants in M.O.P.No.570 of 2001 will be entitled is Rs.2,18,000/- rounded off to Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty thousand only) and the interest rate shall be at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. I do not find any merits in the C.M.A.No.654 of 2004. With the above modification, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No.2144 of 2011 is allowed. The appeal in C.M.A.No.654 of 2004 is dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 23-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2144 of 2011 And C.M.A. No. 654 of 2004 DATE: 23-09-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121