THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2536 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.1540/2001. Second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 20.02.2001 at about 8.40 p.m. while the deceased was boarding the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus of route No.12-M bearing No.AP 9Z 5630 at Kotha road junction, the driver of the bus without noticing that the deceased, who was boarding the bus, suddenly started without following traffic rules, on account of which the deceased fell down on the road and rear wheel of the bus ran over the right thigh of the deceased. Immediately, he was shifted to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment and there he succumbed to injuries, while taking treatment. A case in Cr.No.29 of 2001 under Section 304-A IPC was registered for the accident. Petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased being wife and children, claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Respondents filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-5630 by its driver – first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Considering the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.3,62,000/-. Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded is high? 5. The court below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- a month as he was a goldsmith and aged 45 years and applied multiplier ‘15’ and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses granted compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. 6. As the dependants are ‘4’, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the court below ought to have deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses. Apart from that nothing is added towards enhancement of future earnings. At the time of accident, the petitioner was having scooter, as such, it can be accepted that he was earning Rs.3,000/-a month as fixed by the Tribunal. As such, the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- awarded by the court below cannot be said to be on higher side. As such, I see no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th November 2010, Rns [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104