HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 2769 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.03.2004 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 759 of 2001 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the death of one M. Thirupathi Reddy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.01.2001 at about 6.15 PM when the deceased was returning from Reddy Labs, Bolaram Unit to Jeedimetla via Kukatpally on his Hero Honda Splender bearing No. AP 28M 3164 and when reached near Godrej X Roads, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5945 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. Respondent-Corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5945 by its driver and fixed the liability on the Corporation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration the evidence of PW 1, wife of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,33,000/- to the claimants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by APSRTC. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the Tribunal failed to see that the evidence of PW-2 can not be said to be true, as the accident occurred at about 6.15 PM whereas PW-2 deposed that they left the factory at about 4.45 PM. He also submits that the learned Judge grossly erred in estimating the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- after deducting one third of the amount towards personal expenses. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is not based on facts and the amount of compensation granted deserves to be enhanced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 10.01.2001 at about 6.15 PM when the deceased was returning from Reddy Labs, Bolaram Unit to Jeedimetla via Kukatpally on his Hero Honda Splender bearing No. AP 28M 3164 and when reached near Godrej X Roads, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5945 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. PW-1 wife of the deceased stated that her husband was aged about 29 years and was working in Dr.Reddy Labs ARD department and was getting Rs. 7,350/- per month. Ex. A5 is the salary certificate issued by Dr. Reddy Labs mentioning the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 7,350/-. But the Tribunal while granting compensation took the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- only. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 7,350/- per month is taken as the salary of the deceased and out of that 1/3 rd of the amount if deducted, the net amount comes to Rs. 4,900/- (7,350x1/3= 2450-7350=4,900) and per annum it comes to Rs. 58,800/- (4900 x 12 = 58,800). As the age of the deceased is 29 years, the relevant and appropriate multiplier is 17 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 9,99,600/- (58,800 x 18 = 9,99,600). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 10,19,600/- (9,99,600 + 10,000 + 10,000 = 10,19,600/-). 7. In view of the above, this appeal filed by APSRTC is dismissed and the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 8,33,000/- to Rs. 10,19,600/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.02.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) scale 129