IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1958 of 2008 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad … Appellant And: Adabala Satyavathi & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1958 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.02.2008 in OP No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein, the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein-claimants filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Adabala Satyanarayana in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.07.2005 at Suryaraopet, Rajanagaram. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was travelling in the auto and that an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2844 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was shifted to GSL Hospital, Rajanagaram, where he was declared dead. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was aged 50 years and was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by cultivating the land of Ac.10.00. 4. The APSRTC filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of R.1 driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 2844? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant-RTC but Ex.B.1 was marked on their side. 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 also held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- and accordingly an award was passed for the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-RTC would contend that the auto was overloaded and some of the passengers were also sitting on the rear side of the driver and thus the driver has contributed by his own negligence for the accident. He would further submit that the Tribunal erred in estimating the loss of income at Rs.45,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the deceased was an agriculturist and the lands are intact even after his death and his three major sons are cultivating the said lands now and deriving the income there from. 8. The evidence on record, particularly, the record of the criminal case establishes that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet Ex.A.5 against the driver of the bus. There is nothing on record to show that the driver of the auto was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to contribute to the accident. If he has allowed passengers to sit on either side and permitted over loading and thereby violated any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is altogether a different matter. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the said over loading was in any way possible for the occurrence and on the other hand, the evidence on record establishes that it was the bus, which dashed against the auto. It is not the case that the auto over turned under the impact of its own weight because of over load. When once it is shown that the bus dashed against the auto and it was on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, the appellant-RTC would be liable to pay the compensation. The finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident, does not therefore call for any interference. 9. Regarding quantum of the compensation, admittedly, the deceased was an agriculturist, owning Ac.10.00 of land. It is also not disputed that after the death of the deceased, his sons i.e., claimants 2 to 4 have been cultivating the land and deriving the income there from. It is not the case of the claimants that after the death of the deceased, the lands were swallowed or that they were leased out for any lesser income. When the claimants 2 to 4 who are major sons of the deceased continued to cultivate the lands and deriving same income there from as before, the question of there being any loss of income from the lands on account of the death of the deceased does not arise. The claimants have claimed that there was loss of income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, but they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in that regard. The Tribunal assessed the loss of income at Rs.45,000/- per annum without any basis. If at all there would be loss on account of lack of supervision by the deceased subsequent to his death, instead of estimating the compensation on the basis of lack of supervision, the Tribunal has chosen to award compensation by taking Rs.45,000/- per annum towards loss of income, leaving the fact that there is no loss of income as such. Further the question of deducting any amount towards personal expenses does not also arise, inasmuch as what is lost is not income as such, but only loss on account of supervision over the cultivation. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged 55 years, and the extent of lands involved is Ac.10.00, it is considered just and reasonable to estimate the loss of supervision at Rs.2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Applying the suitable multiplier of ‘11’ applicable to the age of the deceased who was 55 years, the loss of contribution of the deceased to the family on account of lack of supervision over cultivation comes to Rs.24,000/- x 11 = Rs.2,64,000/-. The first claimant-wife is held entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants are also held entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- towards compensation, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.07.2010 bss