THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1895 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The second respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) aggrieved by the orders dated 29.12.2001 in O.P.No.506 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District, Judge, Karimnagar filed this appeal. In the said O.P. an amount of Rs.2,48,400/- was awarded as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The facts in brief are that on 21.12.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased as a driver of the lorry bearing registration No.ADM 4678 was proceeding from Gopalapuram Cement Factory to Lingala Ghanpur with a load of cement, bricks and doors and when the vehicle reached Pallagutta, the left side rear tyre of the lorry punctured; that while he was attending to fit the tyre to the lorry, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z.1534 came at high speed from behind being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the stationary lorry, as a result of which, the rare tyre of the lorry ran over him causing his instantaneous death; that the rare side of the lorry was also damaged; that one of the passengers of the bus was also injured and succumbed to the injuries later. Ghanpur P.S. registered a case in crime No.183/97 under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC against the APSRTC bus driver. 4. First respondent-driver remained exparte, while second respondent-APSRTC contested the matter. It has denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-10 Z.1534 by its first respondent-driver and contended that on the fateful day at the relevant time as a Maruthi car came in opposite direction at high speed with full focus of head lights in spite of dipper lights being pressed into service by the first respondent-driver, then he took the bus towards left side of the road and while crossing the stationary lorry, the rare angular of the lorry was hooked up in the panel of second seater of the bus in the cabin portion and the panel had come out causing the fall of some of the passengers and thus there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1- driver. 5. The Tribunal after framing appropriate issues as to the rash and negligent driving of the accident bus by respondent No.1-driver and also as to the entitlement of the petitioner vis-à-vis the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation, answered the first issue against respondent No.1-driver having regard to the evidence of the first petitioner who was examined as PW.1 and one of the passengers in the bus was examined as an eye witness as PW.2 and also considering Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A4-MVI report. So far as the other issue as to the entitlement of the claimants-petitioners and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation is concerned, The Tribunal considering Ex.A.3-post mortem report, fixed the age of the deceased at 45 years and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW.3, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was working as driver of the lorry bearing registration No. ADM 4678 belongs to PW.3. So far as the monthly earnings of the deceased are concerned, it is in the evidence of PW.3 who is the owner of the said lorry that he was paying the deceased Rs.1800/- to 2,000/- per month towards salary and Rs.30/- towards daily batta. That he has also issued Ex.A5- salary certificate to that effect. Of course, the first petitioner who is wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 that her deceased husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal brushing aside the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 as well as Ex.A.5 opined that the deceased might have been earning at Rs.2100/- per month and by taking 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal expenses, arrived at Rs.1400/-per month and annually it came to Rs.16,800/- towards annual loss of dependency to the claimants-petitioners on account of the death of the deceased. Since Ex.A3-post mortem report indicates that the deceased was aged 45 years by the time of his death, the Tribunal considered ‘13’ as appropriate multiplier for a person of that age group and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.2,18,400/-(1400 x12 x 13) and held that the claimants-petitioners are entitled to receive the said compensation amount. In addition thereto, the first petitioner being widow, is entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,48,400/-with 9% per annum interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal considering that respondent No.1-driver was in the employment of respondent No.2-APSRTC and since the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accident APSRTC bus, held that respondent No.2 being employer of respondent No.1 is vicariously liable to pay the compensation. Thus both the respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the claimants-petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC while reiterating the grounds of appeal and upon being convinced during the course of arguments about the facts of the case as well as law that is applicable to the said facts, ultimately raised a contention that the interest awarded at 9% per annum by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Learned counsel referring to the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] contended that the rate of interest of the matter may be brought on par with the said decision. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners- claimants submits that the impugned order in the O.P. was passed on 29.12.2001; that the Tribunal considered every aspect of the matter and fixed the interest at 9% per annum as the same was generally awarded in the matter of like nature at that point of time. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal was justified in awarding interest at 9% per annum and as such, the same does not warrant interference from this court. 8. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court and it is to be held that the petitioners-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,48,400/-. However, the interest at 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 7.5% per annum in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The C.M.A. is accordingly disposed of. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 09-09-2010 Stp [1] 2009 ACJ 1298