IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4461 of 2004 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its General Manager (redesignated as Managing Director), Musirabad, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Kompally Madhavi and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4461 of 2004 ORDER: Respondents, who are wife, children and mother of K.Bandhi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’), filed O.P.No.284 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 18.01.2000 while the deceased was returning to his village, along with another person as pillion rider, on a scooter bearing No.AP-28-J-2529 and when reached Chandanavelli village outskirts at Palagadda, a bus bearing No.AP-10Z-3080, belonging to the appellant-Corporation, came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter resulting the instantaneous death of the deceased and severe injuries to the pillion rider. Respondents claimed that the deceased was aged 32 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing agriculture. Appellant filed counter before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belongs to the respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what extent? On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, awarded Rs.5,64,000/- as compensation to the claimants with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the present appeal is by the respondent- Corporation before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a higher compensation by taking the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and the rate of interest granted is also excessive. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal rightly allowed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is to what compensation the claimants are entitled? 4. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that the deceased was aged 32 years by the date of accident and was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month by doing cultivation and flower business. As there was no proof of income, the Tribunal, by taking the annual income of the deceased, after deducting one-third towards personal living expenses, as Rs.32,000/- and applying the multiplier 17, awarded Rs.5,44,000/- towards loss of dependency. Since the accident occurred in 2000 and since there was no proof to show the income, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to take the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month, which annually comes to Rs.42,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd thereof, it comes to Rs.28,000/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘16’. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.28,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,48,000/-. 5. The Tribunal also granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st respondent; Rs.2,500/- towards criminal expenses; and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Instead of the said amounts, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st respondent; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 6. So, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,48,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st respondent + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; totaling to Rs.4,70,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7% per annum. 8. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.4,70,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the appellant with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. From out of the said amount, the 1st respondent is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (inclusive of Rs.10,000/- granted towards loss of consortium) and interest thereon; 2nd and 4th respondent are each entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- and interest thereon; and 3rd respondent is entitled to Rs.50,000/- and interest thereon. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 26th August 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104