IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: November 15, 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.No. 2384 of 2003 Between: APSRTC represented by its Managing Director ..Appellant And Sujatha and others ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 2384 of 2003 Judgment This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad against the order passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No. 378 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: Narasimha Reddy (herein after called as the deceased) is the husband of the first petitioner; father of the second petitioner and son of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. He was aged thirty years, doing vegetable business, apart from cultivation and earning Rs.3,000-00 per month. On 25-04-1997 at 3.00 PM the deceased was going on his TVS Moped from Santhipuram to his native village, on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Ellammagudi temple on Bellakogilla – Santhipuram, the driver of the respondent’s bus bearing No.9347 came on wrong side, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed deceased. Consequently the TVS Moped was damaged and he died instantaneously. A case in Cr.No.39 of 1997 of Rallabudugur Police Station was registered. In all the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3.50 Lakhs. 3. The respondent filed its counter denying the petition averments and subjected the petitioners to strict proof of those averments. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal below framed the following issued for trial: i) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus 9347? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what amount? iii) To what relief? 5. To substantiate their case, the petitioners examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked – Ex A-1, Certified copy of the FIR in Cr.No.39 of 1997 of Rallabuduguru PS.; Ex A-2, Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No. 59 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam; Ex A-3, Certified copy of the Post mortem certificate in Cr.No.39 of 1997 and Ex A-4, Certified of the MVI Report in the same crime. On behalf of sole respondent, RW-1 was examined and Ex B-1 Certified copy of the calendar copy in C.C.No.59 of 1997 was marked. 6. On the basis of the above material on record, the tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,500-00 and against the same, the sole respondent-APSRTC filed the present appeal. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant is that the compensation awarded is on higher side and as such the same has to be reduced. 8. It is a case of death of the deceased. At the time of the accident he was going on TVS Moped and stated to be earning Rs.3,000-00 per month. As he was maintaining a two wheeler, it can be said that he must be having reasonable income. He is said to be aged 40 years, in the postmortem examination report, it is shown that the deceased was aged forty years. No authentic evidence with regard to the income of the deceased was produced. As such, the Tribunal below taking into consideration the age of the deceased, as 40 years and taking notional income as Rs.10,000-00 per annum, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,500-00, which, in fact, is inadequate and absolutely there are no grounds for allowing the appeal. As the compensation awarded, itself, is inadequate absolutely there are no grounds for reducing the rate of interest also. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date:15—11—2010. *BVS