THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.763 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the second respondent - A.P.S.R.T.C. against the decree and order, dated 05.11.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.1046/2002. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are that on 27.10.1997 at about 6.45 p.m. the deceased Venkata Ramana was crossing the road at Parameswari Picture Palace at Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. At that time the offending vehicle APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 1914 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and ran over his head on account of that he died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.85/97 was registered. Petitioners 1 to 4, being wife, son and parents of the deceased respectively, claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- contending that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by attending contract works. First respondent remained exparte. Second respondent filed counter denying the material allegations made in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and resulted in death of the victim? 2. If so, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount? 3. Which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent-APSRTC preferred this appeal. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. As per the material on record, the deceased was aged 28 years, though there was no authentic evidence with regard to the same, the maximum multiplier of ‘18’ was taken. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.1500/- per month, which can be said to be minimum and by applying multiplier ‘18’ the compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- was awarded for loss of dependency. No additional income was taken towards enhancement of future earnings. 7. There is no dispute about the accident even as per the Investigating Officer, R.W.1 examined by A.P.S.R.T.C. There is no dispute with regard to the profession and income of the deceased. The contention of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/-per month as a contractor was not accepted by the court below and his income was taken at Rs.1500/- per month and as already referred that can be the minimum and nothing was added towards enhancement of future earnings. 8. Considering all these circumstances, the compensation awarded, i.e. Rs.2,36,000/- cannot be said to be high as there are four dependants and the deceased was aged about 28 years. Compensation awarded itself is somewhat on lower side as no cross appeal was filed, I am not inclined to reduce the rate of interest also, though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest cannot be at 9% per annum, but it shall be around 6% per annum. 9. In these circumstances, I see no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 25th June 2010, Rns