THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 of 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.No.3191 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2007 by the, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Guntur, on 16.07.2008. M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 of 2008 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. M.A.C.M.A.No.3191 of 2011 is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. for rejection of the claim of the claimants with delay condonation petition MACMA MP No.3776 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the same was allowed on 10.11.2011. The claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Prasad, have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident, that occurred on 13.11.2006. According to the claimants, on 13.11.2006 while the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AN 1924 near Mansanpalli Chowrasta, at about 12.10 P.M. one RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3834 driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The Maheswaram police registered a case in Crime No.184 of 2006 against the driver of the RTC bus and subsequently filed the charge sheet against him. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 33 years and working as Junior Manager in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, Bollaram, Medak District and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The APSRTC has opposed the said application by filing counter contending that the driver of the RTC bus was not responsible for the accident and the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself and they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer of the motorcycle is also a necessary party to the proceedings and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus AP 9Z 3834? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 and X.5. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. The standing counsel appearing for APSRTC contending that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving his motorcycle with high speed came from rear side of the bus without any signal or horn and tried to overtake the bus; in that process came into contact with Babul bushes branches and lost balance and came under rear right side tyres and succumbed to injuries. As such there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC Bus. The claimants’ counsel on the other hand has supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal. On behalf of the claimants, to establish the accident, examined P.W.3, who has reported the incident to the police. According to him, on the date of accident he was at Masanpally crossroad at about 12.10 P.M. and found the deceased going on motorcycle on the left side of the road, then the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 9X 3834 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased going in the same direction resulting in his instantaneous death. P.W.3 has denied that when the deceased tried to overtake the bus he came into contact with babul tree branches and fell down between the right side rear tyres and succumbed to injuries. R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus, has stated that the deceased lost control over the motorcycle due to high speed and there is no sufficient space to overtake the bus as there are babul tree bushes by the side of the road. In support of his contention, APSRTC got marked Ex.B.1, rough sketch showing the scene of offence. Ex.B.1 does not disclose any babul tree bushes by the side of the road, but it only shows a small tree. Further, Ex.B.1 rough sketch does not disclose that it was prepared by the investigating officer and it appears that it was prepared by the respondent in support of their claim. Ex.A.2 charge sheet clearly shows that the investigation done by the police reveals that the bus hit the motorcyclist, thereafter he fell down and bus ran over him. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus by relying upon the evidence of P.W.3, Exs.A.2 and A.6 and Ex.B.1. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the contention of the APSRTC’s counsel in that regard cannot be accepted. The standing counsel for APSRTC has further pleaded that the compensation of Rs.15,10,999/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive as Dr.Reddy’s Labs paid an amount of Rs.21,39,707/- to the claimants and also paying Rs.3,400/- per month towards family pension. He further pleaded that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side. On the other hand the claimants’ counsel has pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in reducing the compensation payable to the claimants by taking into consideration of the death-cum-retirement benefits paid by Dr. Reddy’s Labs. He further pleaded that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the future prospects of the deceased in awarding the compensation; as such they are entitled for enhancement of the compensation. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the salary of the deceased as Rs.22,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier 17, arrived at the compensation payable to the petitioners is Rs.29,91,999/-, but by taking into consideration of the payment of Rs.21,39,707/- by Dr. Reddy’s Labs towards death benefits and providing Rs.3,400/- per month towards family pension, awarded half of the amount towards loss of dependency. The said amount paid by Dr.Reddy’s Labs is not liable to be deducted from out of the compensation payable to the claimants. P.W.2, who is the Junior Manager in H.R. Department, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Hyderabad, has stated that the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.25,049/- and deductions are Rs.5,196/- and the net income of the deceased was Rs.19,853/-. Ex.A.15 pay slip of the deceased shows the gross salary as Rs.25,049/- and after deducting professional tax, income tax, bus deduction, family health plan, Dr.Reddy labs employees benevolent fund, which are amounting to Rs.2,908/-, the salary payable to the deceased was Rs.22,141/- per month. In “Shyamwati Sharma and others v. Karam Singh and others[1]” it is held that when the deceased was below 40 years of age and having a permanent job, the salary should be increased by 50% towards future prospects to arrive at the monthly income by relying upon the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”. In the present case, the deceased was working as Junior Manager in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, Bollaram and aged about 33 years as on the date of his death and as per Ex.X.2 service certificate, he has got permanent job, therefore, 50% of his salary has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to (Rs.22,141 + Rs.11,070) Rs.33,211/-. Since the dependents are 5 in number, as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) 1/5th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, after deducting the same, the dependency of the petitioners comes to (Rs.33,211-Rs.6,642) Rs.26,569/- Since the deceased was aged about 33 years, the appropriate multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) is ‘16’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes ot Rs.26,569 X 12 X 16 = Rs.51,01,248/-. Apart from the said loss of dependency, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.51,21,248/-. Since the claimants have claimed only Rs.40,00,000/-, the compensation payable is restricted to Rs.40,00,000/- The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% P.A., but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation amount. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/- from Rs.15,10,999/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.3191 of 2011 is partly allowed to the limited extent of reducing the interest to 6% P.A. from 7.5% P.A. on the compensation. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:10-11-2011 Ksp [1] (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 378