IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3728 of 2008 & Cross Objections in (SR) No.49159 of 2008 Between: Kethavath Tulsi Bai & 4 others … Appellants And: APSRTC, Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3728 of 2008 & Cross Objections in (SR) No.49159 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2008 in OP No.2740 of 2006 on the file of the MACT cum Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.9,47,536/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.12 lakhs under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the deceased Lakman, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.09.2006. The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Lakman. According to the claimants, the deceased was walking on the road near SR Nagar bus stop, Hyderabad and the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 192 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. 4. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant, but Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal further estimated the compensation payable at Rs.9,47,536/- and accordingly, award was passed for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred the appeal and not satisfied with the award, the claimants preferred cross-objections. 6. Though, the appellant alleges that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also, the said ground is not seriously pursued and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver does not call for any interference, especially in the absence of any evidence by the appellant and the driver of the bus was not examined. 7. Regarding quantum of compensation, the deceased was stated to be working as driver in GHMC and was aged 46 years by the date of the accident. Ex.X.1 Service Book discloses the date of birth of the deceased as 01.01.1960 and he died on 30.09.2006. PW.3 Senior Assistant of GHMC was examined to prove the salary particulars of the deceased. Ex.A.6 salary certificate shows that the deceased was drawing Rs.8909/- towards net salary. The Tribunal has taken the same into consideration and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, estimated the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.9,26,536/- by applying the multiplier ‘13’. 8. As seen from Ex.A.6, Rs.500/- was deducted towards GPF and Rs.413/- towards LIC premium. The said amount which is in the nature of deferred payment also partake the character of the income of the deceased and the same ought to have been taken into consideration. The income of the deceased therefore comes to Rs.9822/- per month. 9. As per the recent decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], 30% of the salary has to be added towards future prospects and thus the total income that can be take into consideration is Rs.9822/- + 30% (Rs.2947/-)= Rs.12,769/- As the deceased left behind wife and four children, numbering 5 dependents, only 25% of the income can be deducted towards personal expenses (i.e., Rs.12,769/- - 25% (Rs.3192/-)= Rs.9577/-). The contribution of the deceased to the family therefore comes to Rs.9577/- per month and Rs.1,14,924/- per annum. As per the above decision, the suitable multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘13’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,14,924/ - x 13 = Rs.14,94,012/-. The contention of the appellant that a lesser multiplier of 9.75 as per the decision of this court in Bhagawan Das’s case (1987(2) ALT 137) ought to have been taken into consideration is untenable in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case, wherein after review of the various multiplying methods in vogue, the apex Court has set out certain guidelines indicating the suitable multipliers to be adopted while estimating the loss of dependency. The claimants are also held entitled for Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and the first claimant is entitled for Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. The total amount of compensation payable to the claimants therefore comes to Rs.15,03,512/-, but however, the same is limited to Rs.12,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants. The claimants are held entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the original amount from the date of petition and on the enhanced amount, at the same rate, from the date of filing of the cross- objections, till the date of realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Cross- objections are allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.09.2011 bss