IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1470 of 2006 Between: APSRTC, Vemulawada, represented by its Deport Manager, Karimnagar and another .. Appellants AND Dayyala Yellavva and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.110 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 14-03-2006. Dayyala Ashalu was travelling as a pillion rider on a Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-4544 on 20-03-2004 when at about 10.30 A.M. in the outskirts of Chepyal village, APSRTC bus AP- 10-Z-776 dashed against the motorcycle. The bus, which came in the opposite direction, was driven rashly and negligently at high speed resulting in the death of Dayyala Ashalu on the spot. The police registered Crime No.15 of 2004 against the bus driver and Ashalu was working as labourer with work permit No.1333897 in Saudi Arabia since 24-11-1993 having travelled with his Passport No.E-3986677. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month in Indian currency and was contributing the income to his dependents at the age of 35 years. The claimants, who are the wife, minor son and parents of Ashalu, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Corporation contested the claim contending that the bus was driven at a moderate speed at the time of accident and it was the motorcycle, which was driven in a zigzag manner at high speed rashly and negligently leading to the accident. The Corporation, therefore, denied any liability to pay any compensation while also denying the age and income of the deceased. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.2 to A.12 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly referring to the eye-witness account of PW.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet. The Tribunal declined to rely on the evidence of RW.1, the conductor of the bus, noting that the conductor would have been busy with the maintenance and issuance of tickets, maintenance of S.R. and verification of passengers and would not have been observing the manner in which the bus was being driven or the accident had happened and would not have had the same opportunity like PW.2 to know the details of the incident. The Tribunal, hence, concluded that it was the rash and negligent driving of the bus that resulted in the accident. The Tribunal assessed the compensation on the basis of Ex.A.10-Salary certificate, Ex.A.8-work permit, Ex.A.7-Passport and the evidence of PW.1 about her husband working in Saudhi Arabia since about 14 years earlier. The salary of the deceased was noted to be 775 Saudi Riyals, which was taken to be justifying the assessment of his monthly salary at Rs.6,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd out of the same towards maintenance of the deceased himself, the Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,000/- per month. With reference to the multiplier in Bhagvan Das v. Mohd. Arif (1987 (2) ALT 137), the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13.21. The Tribunal, while granting a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,64,080/- rounded off to Rs.6,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation between the claimants. The Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal contending the compensation awarded to be excessive, the age adopted to be without proof and the income accepted to be without any credentials. The Corporation, therefore, desired the incorrect application of multiplier to be corrected and the non-pecuniary damages to be rejected and the appeal to be allowed. Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents are heard. The grounds of appeal did not challenge in any manner the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the accident and the consequential vicarious liability of the Corporation for the tortious act of the driver cannot be in doubt. The entitlement of the dependents of the deceased for the just and adequate compensation is, hence, not in question and the relationship of the claimants to the deceased also is not in dispute. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal was not on a guess or estimate, but based on positive documentary evidence in Ex.A.10 salary certificate, Ex.A.7-Passport and Ex.A.8-Work permit. The probability shown by the entries in the passport and work permit about the period of employment of the deceased in Saudhi Arabia, the quantum of salary disclosed by Ex.A.10 etc., could not have been doubted in any manner and in fact, the Tribunal, in spite of each Saudi Riyal being valued at Rs.11/- at that time and the deceased earning Rs.775 Saudi Riyals per month, assessed the income at a lower figure of Rs.6,000/- and as opposed to the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], deducted percentage of 1/3rd from the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased though it could have been only 1/4th in view of the dependents being 4 in number. Similarly, the multiplier adopted as per the precedent then in vogue is much lesser than the multiplier adopted by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) and if so, it is for the claimants to have complained about their being denied the requisite quantum of compensation, but not for the Corporation to be aggrieved by the same. Even if non-pecuniary damages of Rs.30,000/- was not split into definite heads of damages to scrutinize the correctness of the same, the same need not be a subject of revision in view of the other circumstances stated above. Even the interest awarded was only 7.5%, which was not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing market rate of interest, therefore, cannot be interfered with in any manner. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298