IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2936 of 2007 Dated: 07-12-2011 Between: Soma Nagamani and 3 others ….Appellants And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2936 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the claimants is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.50 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda on 18.07.2007. The appellants herein, who are the claimants, have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Soma Jagadeeshwar @ Srinu, the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd petitioner and son of the 3rd and 4th petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 21.08.2004 at 7.00 p.m. when the deceased Soma Jagadeeshwar was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-H-874 from Suryapet to Mattapally village for attending a marriage on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near the outskirts of Mukundapuram village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2173, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Hence, the claim. The 1st respondent has remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent has filed the counter denying the averments made in the petition and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the averments made in the petition. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased Soma Jagadeeshwar @ Srinu died in the motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2173? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, what is the quantum and from whom it should be collected? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2173. With regard to the issue No.2 i.e. quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,75,500/- by taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- and deducting one-third towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘17’ and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Aggrieved by the said amount of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal. The claimants’ counsel has pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the annual income at Rs.24,000/- and failed to consider Exs.A-5, A-7, A-14 and A-15 and the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary by working as a Supervisor in the partnership firm and also having agricultural land, as such, the quantum of compensation is to be enhanced. The Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has pleaded that the salary certificate produced by the claimants was not proved, as such the same cannot be relied upon and even though the deceased was having agricultural lands, the claimants are not sustained any loss due to the death of the deceased, as such, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/-. According to P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, the deceased was working as a Supervisor in the firm and also looking after the agricultural lands and was getting monthly income of more than Rs.6,000/- per month and he was aged only 35 years as on the date of his death. In support of her contention, she got marked Ex.A-5, the agricultural income certificate issued by the M.R.O.; Ex.A-7, salary certificate of the deceased and also Ex.A-14, the attested copy of the pattedar pass book and Ex.A-15, attested copy of the title deed book and examined P.W.2. According to P.W.2, the deceased and himself are the partners in the firm and he is the managing partner of the said firm and the deceased, who is his younger brother, was working as Supervisor and looking after the functioning of the firm and getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and he has issued Ex.A-7 salary certificate. He also stated that the deceased was having agricultural land and was getting income of Rs.35,000/- out of the said agricultural land. The evidence of P.W.2 with regard to their running of a partnership firm cannot be disbelieved in view of Ex.A-12, which is the Xerox copy of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet on 13.09.2001. As per the said decree, a suit was filed against the firm of the P.W.2 and the deceased and obtained a decree. Therefore, the existence of the firm cannot be doubted. With regard to the income of the deceased, P.W.2 has issued Ex.A-7 salary certificate. The said certificate shows that as on the date of his death, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from the said salaried income, the deceased was having agricultural land of 3-00 acres and odd, which is evident from Exs.A-5, A-14 and A-15. Even though the claimants have not sustained any loss of agricultural income due to the death of the deceased, they have suffered loss of supervision over the said agricultural land due to the death of the deceased as such the claimants are entitled for loss of supervision over the said agricultural land. Since the deceased was working as a Supervisor in the firm and also attending to the agricultural lands, the lower Court has erred in taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- without giving any reasons. In view of the fact that the deceased was working as Supervisor and also attending to the agricultural work, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], one-third has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses the annual loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.48,000/-. Since the deceased aged about 35 years, the proper multiplier that is applicable as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) is ‘16’ and thus, the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.7,68,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. But, as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the petitioners are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,88,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty eight thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,75,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.7,88,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty eight thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. __________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA _______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 07-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.2936 of 2007 Date: 07-12-2011 MR [1] (2009) 7 SCC 372 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992