THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 1406 of 2007 and M.A.C.M.A. No. 1454 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana,J) These two M.A.C.M.As. are directed against the award and decree dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Bomb Blast Case-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 1342 of 2004 awarding compensation of Rs.8,61,948/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the O.P. M.A.C.M.A. No. 1406 of 2007 is filed by the petitioners- claimants contending that the compensation of Rs.8,61,948/- awarded by the Court below as against their claim of Rs.25,00,000/- is very low and needs enhancement. While M.A.C.M.A. No. 1454 of 2009 is filed by the respondents-APSRTC contending that compensation awarded by the Court below is very high and has to be reduced. On 18.03.2004, the son of the petitioners-claimants by name Ankur Garg, while going on his motorcycle to Siva Sivani Institute of Management, Kompally, from his house, met with an accident when the bus bearing No. AP 11Z 2990 belonging to the respondents, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. In the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and while being shifted to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. On account of the untimely death of the deceased in the accident, the petitioners- claimants who happen to be his father and mother filed claim petition before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents contending that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 23 years; was earning Rs.8,000/- per month doing part-time job as Manager in LRK Constructions. That they have spent about Rs.5.00 lakhs for his B.Tech. education and Rs.3.00 lakhs for his admission in MBA course and on account of his untimely death, they suffered lot of mental agony and the amount spent by them towards the education of the deceased went in waste and that he would have earned millions of rupees had he been alive. The respondent-APSRTC filed their counter contending that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of their bus by its driver. They contended that the deceased died when he fell down after hitting an auto, which stopped on noticing that the bus of the respondents is stopped. That since the deceased died after hitting the auto, they are not liable to pay any compensation. That the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of other members of the family as parties. They denied that the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was doing part-time job as Manager in LRK Constructions and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. They thus prayed that the O.P. be dismissed. Before the Court below, the petitioners-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A13, while the respondents neither examined any witness nor marked any documentary evidence. The court below after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of their respective contentions held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. So far as compensation is concerned, the Court below believing that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, deducted one-third thereof towards his personal expenses, and worked out his contribution to his family at Rs.5,333/- per month i.e. Rs.63,996/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried, the Court below felt it appropriate to take the age of the mother of the deceased for fixing the appropriate multiplier. Considering the fact that the mother of the deceased was aged 48 years, adopted the multiplier 13, and worked out the compensation payable by the respondents to the claimants at (Rs.63,996/- x 13) Rs.8,31,948/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from the said sum, the Court below also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of affection; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.8,61,948/- along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC. The learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants contended that the deceased just before his death in the accident, after completing his B.Tech. course in JNTU, had joined M.B.A. I year by paying Rs.5,00,000/-. And even though the deceased at the time of the accident was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing part-time job as Manager in M/s. LRK Constructions, but in view of the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union[1], the salary of the deceased has tob e taken at Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, he prayed that the compensation be computed by taking the salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, and the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants be enhanced. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC on the other hand contended that since the deceased at the time of his death was doing part-time job and earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the appellants-claimants are not entitled to take the benefit of the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union. He further submitted that since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses, but the Court below erred in deducting only one-third of the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. He thus prayed that the compensation awarded by the Court below be reduced suitably. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC. The contention of the respondents-APSRTC that the appellants-claimants are not entitled to take the benefit of the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, for the purpose of fixing the salary of the deceased, because at the time of the accident, he was doing part-time job as Manager in M/s. LRK Constructions cannot be accepted. The appellants-claimants though produced evidence to show that the deceased at the time of accident was doing part-time job as Manager in M/s. LRK Constructions and earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the fact remains, the said job which he was doing is only a part-time job. While the appellants-claimants produced documentary evidence, namely Exs. A8, A9 and A11- fees receipts and Ex. A9-bonafide certificate, to show that the deceased was admitted into MBA First year, after his obtaining a degree in B.Tech. from JNTU. Since appeal is continuation of the original proceedings, the appellants- claimants are entitled to take the benefit of the precedential value of the judgment in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, as the same holds the field and is not over- ruled by the Surpeme Court. In B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, this Court held that the salary of a B.Tech. graduate can be taken at Rs.12,000/-. Even though the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants impressed upon us to take the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, considering the fact that after completion of his B.Tech., he has joined MBA first year, we are not inclined to take the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, because he died just after joining the MBA I year. However, since the deceased completed his B.Tech. degree, having regard to the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, we are of the considered opinion that the salary of the deceased can be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month. Accordingly, we take the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per moth. The deceased admittedly is a bachelor and unmarried person. The Court below admittedly deducted one-third of the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. But as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] and of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, 50% of the salary has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, if he happens to be a bachelor. Since the deceased was a bachelor, if 50% is deducted from his salary, which is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, his contribution to the family, would come to (Rs.12,000/- - Rs.6,000/-) Rs.6,000/- per month i.e. Rs.72,000/- per annum. As the mother of the deceased is aged 48 years, the relevant multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation is 13. Thus the compensation, which the appellants-claimants would be entitled to for the death of the deceased towards loss of dependency is (Rs.72,000/- x 13) Rs.9,36,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and miscellaneous expenses as awarded by the Court below. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.9,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing petition to till the date of realization. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1406 of 2007 filed by the appellants-claimants is party allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Court below from Rs.8,61,948/- to Rs.9,66,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. While M.A.C.M.A. No. 1454 of 2009, filed by the respondents-APSRTC is dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 14th September, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (DB) [2] 2009 (3) Supreme 487