IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3359 of 2003 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Minuku Ramalakshmamma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.211 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Kadapa, dated 16-06-2003. Narasimhulu along with others collecting plantain leaves brought the bundles of plantain leaves to Sivasankarapuram bus stop and at about 7 P.M., APSRTC bus AP 9Z 5986 came to the bus stop and Narasimhulu and others were allowed to place the plantain leaf bundles on the top of the bus. Narasimhulu came into contact with high tension live electric wire overhanging above the bus and died due to electrocution. Obulavaripalli police registered crime No.66 of 1999 against the driver and conductor of the bus for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Narasimhulu was stated to be earning Rs.3,500/- per month at the age of 24 years, contributed entirely to the family consisting of his wife, minor son aged 2 months and the parents. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The corporation resisted the claim denying any negligence on the part of the driver or the conductor who had no knowledge of the overhanging of high tension live electric wire over the bus at the bus stop. It was Narasimhulu who attempted to place the plantain leaf bundles on the top of the bus, though the conductor asked him to place them inside the bus and the death due to electrocution cannot be considered to be due to a motor vehicle accident. The compensation claimed also is excessive and hence, the respondent corporation desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 were marked during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.4 charge-sheet corroborating the evidence of the father of the victim as P.W.2 and noted that the driver and conductor of the bus examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 claimed that they wanted the plantain leaf bundles to be placed inside the bus, but the passenger himself wanted to place them on the top of the bus. The investigating officer was noted to have found in Ex.A.4 that the driver and conductor were at fault and though the driver and conductor were acquitted as seen from Ex.B.1 judgment of the criminal Court, still the driver and conductor were held to be not absolved from their responsibility to ensure the safety of a passenger who gets over the top of the bus. Whether the passenger requested for placing the plantain bundles inside the bus and the conductor and the driver wanted him to place them on the top of the bus as claimed by P.W.2 or not, the Tribunal concluded that when the passenger was allowed negligently by the conductor to go over the top of the bus, it cannot be said that the accident was not in connection with the use of motor vehicle. The Tribunal opined that if the bus was not used by the passenger, the question of any electrocution would not have arisen and hence, held the issue in favour of the claimants. The age of the deceased was taken as 24 years as stated in Ex.A.3 post-mortem certificate and his monthly income was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- per month as against the claim of the claimants that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. The relevant multiplier 18 was applied. One-third of the income of the deceased was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the annual contribution at Rs.12,000/- multiplied by 18 was the basis for arriving at the total loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000/-. The 1st claimant wife was held entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,000/- each towards funeral expenses and transport charges. On the total compensation of Rs.2,48,000/-, interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs were also awarded. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation preferred the present appeal contending that in the absence of any negligence on the part of the driver and conductor and in the face of negligence of the deceased himself in climbing up the bus and coming into contact with high tension live electric wire, the corporation could not have been fastened with any liability. The assessment of annual income and the application of multiplier were also incorrect and hence, the appellant desired the impugned award to be reversed. Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Smt. S. Parinitha, learned counsel representing Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal cannot be subjected to any reassessment, as the probable income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal only at Rs.1,500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per annum. When even a non-earning person is presumed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum for purpose of computation of compensation, the able bodied young man aged 24 years with the responsibility to maintain not only himself but his wife, a two month old son and aged parents would have, undoubtedly, engaged himself in some avocation to fetch a decent income. Even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers at about the relevant time were much more than Rs.1,500/- per month and therefore, the assessment of the loss of dependency or grant of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.1,000/- each towards funeral expenses and transport charges need no interference at this distance of time. The interest at 9 per cent per annum was not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing market rates of interest and costs follow the event is the rule but not an exception. While the quantum granted is, thus, justified, the question that remains is whether there need be any denial of the compensation or apportionment of the same due to the deceased climbing over the bus leading to his being electrocuted by high tension live electric wire hanging above the bus. Smt. Parinitha, learned counsel representing the claimants brought to notice that in A.A.O. No.4331 of 2004 arising out of the same accident involving the death of another person, a learned Judge of this Court decided on 07-12-2006 that the corporation is liable to compensate. A perusal of the order shows that the other person also went to the top of the bus to put the bundle of banana leaves, came into contact with live electric wire and died instantly. The learned Judge opined that it is evident from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that the use of motor vehicle cannot be restricted to one when the vehicle is in motion and the Parliament contemplated all possible situations that arise on account of the use of motor vehicle. The award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants therein on identical lines as herein was upheld by the learned Judge. The said judgment has admittedly become final and therefore, the contention that the motor vehicle cannot be considered to be in use in a public place to bring the death of the deceased due to contact with live electric wire within the purview of compensability under that Act cannot be sustained. The question of any contributory negligence of the deceased does not arise, as the driver and the conductor should not have allowed the passenger to be subjected to such a risk and when their negligence in not observing the overhanging live high tension electric wire proved fatal to the deceased. Under the circumstances, the appeal cannot be sustained on any ground and has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-03-2011 Svv