IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.772 OF 2008 Between: Smt.Karemunnissa @ Rafia Begum and two others … Appellants And: K.Srinivasa Reddy and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.772 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2007 in O.P.No.420 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Chief Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,73,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for the death of Jamaluddin, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.02.2006. According to the claimants, on that day, when the deceased was going on a cycle along side the City College road towards Nayapul, a Tata Indica car bearing No.AP 31 AG 6480, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him and the deceased fell down and he was run over by an APSRTC bus plying on Route No.72L which was also going in the same direction towards Nayapul. 4. The respondents filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondent, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles i.e., Tata Indica car and the APSRTC bus who are equally responsible for the accident and, therefore, apportioned the liability equally among them. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal estimated the total compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- and passed a decree against the respondents for half of the said amount i.e., Rs.1,73,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the driver of the car was entirely responsible for the accident and the Tribunal erred in apportioning the liability from among the drivers of both the vehicles, instead of fastening the entire liability on the driver of the car. He would further contend that the Tribunal applied lesser multiplier of ‘13’ instead of ‘15’ which is appropriate to the age of the deceased who was 40 years in estimating the loss of dependency. 8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, would contend that as per the evidence available on record, the death of the deceased occurred on account of his falling underneath the rear wheels of the bus and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the driver of the car. 9. Admittedly, the respondents have not preferred any appeal assailing the award. The finding of the Tribunal that the respondents are liable for payment of half of the compensation towards their 50% share of compensation has, therefore, become final. 10. The only question to be considered is whether the driver of the car is entirely responsible for the accident as contended by the appellants/claimants. Ex.A-1, the F.I.R, and Ex.A-2, the inquest report, would disclose that while the deceased was going on a cycle, he was hit by the car and he fell down on the road and he was run over by an APSRTC bus, resulting in his death. The apparent cause of death of the deceased is on account of his falling underneath the rear wheels of the bus. Of course, initially he fell on the road because he was hit by the car. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased sustained any fatal injuries or that the death of the deceased had occurred because of the car dashing against him. On the other hand, the evidence on record establishes that because of the hit by the car, the deceased merely fell on the road and his death occurred due to the RTC bus running over him. The claimants have not impleaded the APSRTC as respondents and no claim is made against it for the reasons best known to them. Under those circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to show that the death of the deceased was on account of he being dashed by the car, the liability cannot be fastened entirely on the driver of the car for the death of the deceased. As the evidence on record established that the deceased died because he was run over by the bus, the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the liability equally among the drivers of both the vehicles. The said finding does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 11. Regarding the quantum, the deceased was admittedly aged 40 years. He was stated to be working as a tailor. Though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, they have not produced any evidence in support of the said claim. The Tribunal had, therefore, rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum,. After deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the suitable multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘15’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,60,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the 1st claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation, therefore, works out to Rs.3,80,000/-, out of which the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- towards their half share of liability jointly and severally. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled for interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd September 2011 Lrkm [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121