IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.1431 OF 2007 Between : The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Vice Chairman. .... APPELLANT AND Palagiri Mahaboob Chan and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.1431 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. against the award of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Court, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.330 of 2005, wherein the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein was allowed to the extent of granting compensation of Rs.4,38,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum thereon. 2. In this appeal, the facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased was a businessman. On 08.04.2005, the deceased along with his son claimant No.2 and PW-2 were intending to travel to Muddanur for Mallela Dharga festival. On the fateful night, they were waiting to board a truck for reaching the aforesaid place. It is alleged that they boarded a lorry at Vinayaka Nagar Centre, Kadapa, under the impression that the said lorry would go to Muddanur, and there from to Mallela Dharga festival. But the lorry went towards Mydukur, when the said lorry crossed icron circle they noticed that the lorry was going towards Mydukur and they stopped the lorry and started unloading the goods. P.W.2, who was traveling along with the deceased stated that while the deceased was standing on the western side corner of the road and unloading the goods from the truck, which was passed on to him by his son, the offending bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-8390, came at high speed and dashed against the deceased, resulting in his death. 3. The claimants alleged that the deceased was aged about 29 years and he was earning Rs.4500/- to Rs.5000/- per month, by carrying the business in sweets and mixture, and that on account of his death, they lost the bread winner and sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The appellant corporation filed the counter denying the accident and stated that the lorry itself was standing in the middle of the road and persons were getting down from the lorry. The bus driven by RW- 1 had slowed down and noticed that one person fell down from the lorry and the said injured person was the deceased, who ultimately succumbed to injuries. Thus, the appellant case is that there was no accident whatsoever and the same was sought to be established by examining RW-1, driver of the bus. The Court below after consideration of evidence available on record i.e., PWs 1 and 2, as well as First Information Report, inquest report, postmortem certificate and charge sheet marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4, came to the conclusion, that the evidence of RW-1 was not trustworthy, and in view of contra evidence of PW-2 as well as Exs.A1- to A-4, answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, holding that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 5. On issue No.2, the Court below found that there is no material to accept the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5000/- as alleged, and as such assessed a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Further the age of the deceased as per Ex.A3 postmortem certificate and as well as the evidence of PW-1-widow was conformed as 32 years. After applying the deduction 1/3rd, the multiplier ‘17’ was applied and dependency was arrived at Rs.4,08,000/-. To the said amount Rs.15000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, transport charges and mental agony was also awarded. Thus the aggregate amount of Rs.4,38,000/- was awarded. 6. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus is unjustified, in view of the fact that the lorry itself was standing in the middle of the road. Learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence of earning of the deceased quantified to Rs.3000/- per month, which is on the higher side. Learned counsel also contended that as per the decision of SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS V DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] appropriate multiplier can be ‘16’, but not ‘17’ as applied and that the interest awarded at 7.5% per annum deserves to be scaled down to 6% per annum. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents / claimants however, contended that the age of the deceased has not been properly assessed, as his age is only 29 years and not 32 years as determined by the Tribunal below. The counsel further contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at least Rs.4000/- per month. 8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. To the extent of issue No.1, I have seen the evidence of RW-1 and his cross examination, in particular. Similarly, P.W.2’s evidence is also examined and it is evident that the statement of R.W.1 is contrary to the First Information Report and charge sheet filed by the police and it is clearly contrary to the evidence of PW-2, who was the eyewitness to the incident. In the cross examination, it was not suggested to PW-2 that he was not with the deceased and his presence at the accident was also confirmed by the police in Exs.A1 to A4. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2 and consequently the Court below was justified in rejecting the evidence of RW-1 as not trustworthy inasmuch as he denied even the aspect relating to injury to the passengers in the bus though the same formed part of the charge sheet. There is no other evidence produced by the appellant and since the finding of the Court below on issue No.1 is clearly justified, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant relating to contributory negligence is totally unsustainable. 9. However, to the extent of age of the deceased as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no material to hold that his age was 29 years and there is no contra evidence available on record in the shape of medical evidence as well as the statement of the widow claimant No.1 as PW-1. She accepted that the deceased was aged about 32 years. The Court below, therefore, did not commit any error in determining the age of the deceased as 32 years. 10. However, keeping in view, the decision reported in SARLA VARMA’S CASE (1 supra) the other two aspects raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, viz., appropriate multiplier and the rate of interest, both have to be answered in favour of the appellant. As per the aforesaid decision the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’ but not ‘17’ as adopted by the Court below. The compensation therefore, is required to be worked out by applying multiplier ‘16’, the same works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. However, the interest on the compensation amount is also required to be scaled down and awarded at 6% per annum in conformity with the decision in SARLA VARMA’S CASE (1 supra). 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J JULY, 21, 2010 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298