THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.2310 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) against the order dated 22.02.2006 in O.P.No.542 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar whereby and whereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents was allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: On 5.10.2001, the deceased was travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-7-U-6352 and when it reached the limits of Pullur village, the offending bus bearing No. AP 11Z 460 of Kurnool Depot belonging to the appellant, came in the opposite direction from Kurnool in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the auto, resultantly, the deceased died instantaneously along with some other passengers. On a complaint, the Police Manopad registered a case in Crime No.57/01 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and investigated the matter and laid charge sheet. The respondents are the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was agriculturist and doing transport business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was 32 years old by the date of accident. The first respondent is his wife, respondents 2 to 4 are his children and respondent No.5 is his mother. 3. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to nature of driving of their bus and quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents. They also denied that the deceased was 32 years old, earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and transport business and that there was negligence on the part of their driver. It is stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP7U-6352 whereby the deceased was travelling. However, if the Tribunal would come to a conclusion to award compensation to the respondents, it could be apportioned basing on the contributory negligence on both vehicles. Further, the compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive. 4. Considering the pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal had framed the following issues: i.Whether the accident occurred on 5.10.2001, at about 2.30 p.m. within the limits of Pullure village, PS Manopad, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP- IIZ-460 of Kurnool Depot I, by its driver and whether it resulted in causing the death of deceased N.Narsi Reddy? ii.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii.To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked for respondent-claimants. RW.1 was examined for appellant- insurance company. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the lower Tribunal passed the impugned order as stated in Para 1, supra on the ground that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Challenging the same, the present MACMA is preferred by the APSRTC. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 8. PW.2, who is resident of Koukuntla village, is the defacto complainant and an eye witness to the accident. It appears that 11 persons died in the said accident including the deceased Narsi Reddy. PW.2 deposed that while he was going on foot, he noticed an auto bearing No.AP- 7-U-6352 proceeding towards Kurnool with passengers and in the meantime, the offending bus came in the opposite direction at high speed driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the auto and dragged it for some distance, as a result, some passengers died on the spot and some sustained injuries who were shifted to Kurnool hospital for treatment. Then, he proceeded to P.S. Manopad and lodged a complaint. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination. Further, his evidence is corroborated by Exs.A1-FIR and A2-Charge sheet. RW.1, the driver of the APSRTC bus, deposed that when he reached near Alampur cross- roads, the auto came from Shadnagar side and dashed against the bus in a rash and negligent manner in a bid to over take a lorry. But his evidence cannot be believed since the appellant-APSRTC has not pleaded to that effect in their counter. Even, they did not put a suggestion to PW.2 stating that the auto was driven in a rash and negligent manner in order to overtake another lorry at the place of accident. Exs.A2-charge sheet and A18- inquest report did not support the version of RW.1. Further, Ex.A4-MVI report does not indicate that there was any mechanical defect in the offending bus for causing accident. 9. So far as earning capacity of the deceased is concerned, Exs.A5 to A12 go to show that the deceased used to deal in transport vehicles from 1995 onwards. In this connection, PW.3 was examined. He deposed that the deceased used to purchase and sell the motor vehicles on commission basis and he (deceased) entered into sale agreement Ex.A6 for purchase of Tempo Trax bearing No.AP-21-A- 8559 from one D.Babu for Rs.1,85,000/-. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination. Further, as per Ex.A.13, the deceased had obtained driving licence in the year 1993 itself and subsequently, renewed for heavy passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods motor vehicle. Since, there was no authentic documentary proof to ascertain his income, the lower Tribunal taking into facts and circumstances into consideration, fixed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and thus annually it comes to Rs.36,000/-. If 1/3rd of his income was deducted towards his personal expenses, the net annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-per annum. So far as the age of the deceased at the time of accident is concerned, Exs.A2-charge sheet, A3-PME report and A18-inquest report indicate that the age of the deceased was 42 years. However, Ex.A.13-driving licence, does not indicate his date of birth. In the absence of conclusive proof as to the age of the deceased, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was 50 years old at the time of accident and accordingly applied multiplier ‘11’ and granted Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.24,000/-x11) towards loss of dependency. Further, the first respondent was granted Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium, and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the respondents were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,84,000/- which was rounded of to Rs.2,85,000/-. 10. In the circumstances, this court does not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order except including the consortium awarded to the first respondent in apportioning the compensation amount among the respondents, warranting interference. 11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -07-2010 Stp