HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL No.824 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive and its liability for payment of total compensation, APSRTC filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.932 of 1998 dated 13-08-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Appellants (APSRTC) are respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are claimants in the OP before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: Claimants are wife, daughter and mother of the deceased. On 03-08-1998 at about 8-00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on the main road as a pedestrian, in front of IDPL Plant at Balanagar, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9-Z-3578, which was proceeding from Narsapur crossroads towards Mehdipatnam, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased from behind killing him on the spot. A case in Crime No.163 of 1998 was registered by the police of Balangar Police Station against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. The deceased was working as Helper (Grade – I) for a salary of Rs.7,758/- per month in IDPL Company and due to the accident, which occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus, claimants lost the earning member. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under various heads. 5. The APSRTC filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 03-08-1998 at about 8-00 PM in front of IDPL Plant due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bearing No.AP9-Z-3578 ? 2. Whether the petitioner (claimants) is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much ? 3. To what amount ? 7. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the APSRTC, driver of the bus that involved in the accident was got examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,10,300/- with interest at 12% per annum to the claimants, as against their claim of Rs.9,00,000/-, holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus alone. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal is filed by the APSRTC questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and raising the question of contributory negligence and apportionment of the compensation. 9. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC – appellants, and Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 10. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and excessive and the rate of interest is also high and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well for the accident, as such, compensation has to be apportioned. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, contended that even the compensation awarded is on lower side as the Tribunal, instead of taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,758/-, has taken it at Rs.4,690/-, which is exclusive of overtime allowance etc., and that the Tribunal had not added any amount towards enhancement of future income of the deceased. He also contended that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no material in support of the same except the evidence of RW.1, who is an interested witness. 12. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is on higher side and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ? 13. As per the claim petition, deceased was working as Helper (Grade - I) in IDPL Company on a monthly salary of Rs.7,758/-. PW.2, Senior Accounts Executive in IDPL Company, is examined in support of this contention. But, according to Ex.A-6 salary certificate, salary of the deceased was Rs.4,690-20 paise per month excluding overtime allowance. Deceased was 40 years old as on the date of his death on 03-08-1998 and for his age group, the appropriate multiplier is 12.79. Accordingly, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,690/- per month and out of that after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.4,690 x 1/3 = 1,563) of the amount towards his personal expenses, calculating the contribution of the deceased towards his family at Rs.3,127/- (Rs.4,690 – Rs.1,563/- = Rs.3,127/-) per month and Rs.37,524/- per annum and multiplying the same with multiplier 12.80, awarded compensation of Rs.4,80,307/- (Rs.37,524 x 12.80) towards loss of dependency apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and in all Rs.5,10,300/-. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in computation of the compensation by the Tribunal and arriving at the conclusion of awarding compensation of Rs.5,10,300/-. 14. Further, as per the latest law, certain amount has to be added towards possibility of future earning capacity i.e., enhancement in future income of the deceased and the same was not added by the Tribunal and if the same is added, claimants would be entitled to more than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side or excessive. 15. Coming to the question of contributory negligence, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants except the evidence of RW.1, driver of APSRTC bus, who is an interested witness, there is no other material to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and even from the evidence of RW.1, it is not elicited that there was contributory negligence, as such, there cannot be any reduction of the compensation. Thus, this question is also answered in favour of the claimants. 16 In the circumstances, I see no merits to entertain this appeal. 17. However, as per the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, rate of interest can be reduced to 7.5% per annum from 12% per annum and it is accordingly reduced to 7.5% per annum on the entire compensation from the date of petition. Except reducing the rate of interest, the remaining part of the order of the Tribunal is confirmed in all respects. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 30, 2010. PV