THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 528 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is by the APSRTC, which was figuring as the 1st respondent in O.P.No. 416 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The said O.P. was instituted by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of the death of the husband of 1st claimant in a motor accident involving the appellant’s bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2645. It is stated by the claimants that the deceased was travelling on his motor-cycle bearing No. AP 22 F 7921 and when he reached near Ramireddipalli bus stage, the offending bus came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased which resulted in serious injuries to the deceased to which he ultimately succumbed. The deceased was aged 39 years and was working as a Government Librarian and that his salary was Rs. 7,224/- p.m. and based on that, compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed. Apart from the claimants i.e. the wife and children, the mother of the deceased was impleaded as 2nd respondent in the O.P. The Appellant Corporation filed counter denying that the offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and on the other hand, it was pleaded that the deceased was not having any valid and effective driving license and the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. It was pleaded that the owner or insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was riding was not impleaded in the claim petition and therefore the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The first claimant is examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 who was an eye-witness to the accident confirmed the nature and manner in which the accident occurred. Ex:A.1 to A.8 were also marked on behalf of the claimants. Exs:A.1 to A.5 pertain to the criminal case registered against the driver of the appellant, Exs: A.6 and A.8 were marked for the purpose of establishing the salary drawn by the deceased and also proving his age and Ex:A.7 was a copy of his Service Register. The Tribunal below basing on the evidence of Pw.2 coupled with Exs: A.1 to A.5 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and accordingly answered the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. On issue No.2 i.e. with regard to quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal held that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,224/- p.m. out of which a sum of Rs. 1060/- was shown as loan for the motor cycle and net salary was rounded off to Rs. 6,100/-. The Tribunal below gave the benefit of 18 years service, which was left for the deceased and calculated the average salary, which he would have earned, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, at Rs. 9,18,000/-. However, out of the said amount, the Tribunal deducted the pension, which is being received by the 1st claimant and applying the multiplier 15, which is relevant to the age of the deceased, the dependency was scaled down to Rs. 4,10,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7% p.a. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present appeal is filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the burden of proving rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being on the claimants, they have failed to discharge the same. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that as this a case of collision of two vehicles, it was for the claimants to establish that the vehicle driven by the deceased was not at fault, which they failed to establish. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the aspect of contributory negligence has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal below. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contends that the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as neither the owner nor the insurer of the vehicle of the deceased are impleaded. He also submits that the multiplier applied and the manner in which the dependency is arrived at is erroneous. So far as the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is concerned, I have seen the evidence of Pw.2 including his cross-examination where he specifically states that while bus was approaching Ramireddipalli bus stage and as there was no passenger to alight from the bus, the bus was continued to be driven in high speed and in the result dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. The chief examination and cross- examination of Pw.2 therefore clearly amounted to discharge of initial burden so far as the claimants are concerned. Further, the said evidence of Pw.2 is supported by Exs: A.1 to A.5, particularly the FIR and Charge sheet. It is very significant to notice that Pw.2 himself has telephoned to the police and lodged FIR and his statement was also recorded by the police and as such his presence at the time of accident cannot be disputed. Another significant aspect is that Pw.2 is a stranger to the claimants and his presence at the time of accident near Ramireddipalli bus stage is coincidental and not planted. As there is no evidence adduced by the appellants either by examining the driver or the Conductor or any passenger of the bus, the burden discharged by the claimants therefore remained unrebutted. The Tribunal below was therefore fully justified in answering the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. I see no substance in the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below has taken into consideration the salary certificate and left over service of the deceased. Though the calculations in that regard are not properly made, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal below appears to satisfy the claimants as they have not appealed against the quantum awarded. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal below under II Schedule of the M.V. Act though strictly not applicable, in view of the standardisation of multiplier by the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] the multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased being 15, it would not be necessary to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal below on 2nd issue. The appeal therefore is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 21.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 528 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 21.07.2010. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121