THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.Nos. 4740, 4742 and 4562 of 2004, M.A.C.M.A.No. 700 of 2005, 441 of 2009, C.M.A(SR) No. 63016 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and they involve common questions of fact and law and hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. On 22.02.2000, the deceased and the injured involved in the subject accident were travelling by a jeep No. AP 25 D 795, and near Devapur Cross road, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6748, being driven rashly and negligently and coming in the opposite direction dashed against the jeep resulting in the respective deaths and injuries. M.V.O.P.No. 504 of 2000 was by the dependants of Sri Vittal Singh, who died in the accident and they claimed that Vittal Singh was an agriculturist, earning Rs.3000/- per month and hence, the wife, daughter and sons claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The dependants of Sri M. Raja Reddy, who also died in the accident, filed M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000, claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The wife and son claim that Sri Raja Reddy was an agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The sons of Sri Musle Girija Bai, who also died in the same accident, filed O.P.No. 352 of 2001 for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and both the sons claimed that their mother was earning Rs.4,000/- per month from agriculture, at the age of 45 years. Godavari, injured in the same accident, filed M.V.O.P.No. 506 of 2000, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the grievous and multiple injuries sustained by her during the accident resulting in her disability. The four children of Gangubai, who also died in the accident filed O.P.No. 461 of 2000 for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and they claimed that Gangubai was earning Rs.1,500/- per month by doing agricultural work. 3. In all the claim petitions, the 1st respondent, driver of the R.T.C. bus, and the 3rd respondent, owner of the jeep, remained ex parte. 4. The 2nd respondent – A.P.S.R.T.C. in all the cases contended that the jeep driver was alone responsible for the accident and hence, the owner and insurer of the jeep alone have to pay the compensation and not the A.P.S.R.T.C. 5. The insurer of the jeep, impleaded as the 4th respondent, in all the cases, contended that the jeep driver had no valid driving licence, that the jeep was used for carrying fare-paid passengers, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the permit, and hence, the insurer of the jeep was not liable to pay the compensation. 6. In all the cases, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the respective claimants, for just and adequate compensation. 7. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 in M.V.O.P.No. 504 of 2000 and rendered the award, dated 25.03.2004 impugned in C.M.A.No. 4740 of 2004, opining that though Ex.A1, First Information Report, was registered only against the jeep driver, who died in the accident, Ex.A3, inquest report, showed the panchayatdars to have opined the accident to be due to collision between two vehicles. The Tribunal also referred to Ex.A2, remand case diary showing arrest of the bus driver and opinion of the police that both the drivers are responsible for the accident. The Tribunal further noted that P.W.2, the 2nd petitioner, was an eye witness to the accident and she claimed the bus driver to be at fault for the accident, whose claim was not rebutted by examining the bus driver or by producing any other evidence. Hence, the entire responsibility was opined to be with the AP.S.R.T.C. driver. The Tribunal then noted the jeep driver to be having a driving licence, a copy of which is Ex.A5 and the insurance to be subsisting, the policy being Ex.A6. The age of the deceased was taken as 55 years as stated by P.W.1 and in Exs.A3 and A4, and a multiplier of ‘11’ was adopted from the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). In the absence of any record, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.60/- per day as an unskilled labourer and estimated the monthly income for 25 days in a month at Rs.1,500/- per month. Accordingly, dependency of the claimants was calculated at two-third of the said notional income and Rs.1,32,000/- was considered to be the total loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages under all other heads including loss of consortium. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- was awarded against the A.P.S.R.T.C. and its driver with interest at 9% per annum with proportionate costs. 8. In M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 during the enquiry. It rendered the Award dated 21.04.2004 impugned in C.M.A.No. 4742 of 2004, firstly, fixing the responsibility for the accident on the bus driver, based on the evidence of P.W.2, though the First Information Report, Ex.A1, was registered against the jeep driver only. Ex.A2, inquest report and the subsequent inclusion of the bus driver by the police during their investigation as also responsible for the accident, were relied on by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal also referred to Ex.A4, copy of the driving licence of the jeep driver and Ex.A6, certificate of insurance relating to the jeep, but in view of the findings of responsibility of the bus driver for the accident, the Tribunal fixed the liability for compensation on the bus driver and APSRTC only. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal estimated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- as an unskilled labourer and considered him to be aged 60 years, as P.W.1 stated that the deceased was aged up to 60 years. On the assessment of loss of dependency at Rs.10,800/-, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of ‘8’ and assessed the compensation payable at Rs.96,400/- including the compensation under all other non-pecuniary heads including loss of consortium. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and the proportionate costs on the compensation. 9. In M.V.O.P.No. 352 of 2001, the Tribunal examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and it rendered the Award, dated 20.08.2004, which is impugned in C.M.A.No. 4562 of 2004. The Tribunal concluded the bus driver to be responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, on the un-contradicted evidence of P.W.1, due to non-examination of the bus driver and the conclusions of the Investigating Officer about both the drivers being responsible for the accident and the opinion of the panchayatdars at the time of inquest. The Tribunal in assessing the compensation, estimated the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the absence of any documentary evidence and the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 50 years with reference to the age of his sons/claimants. The financial dependency of the sons was taken at 50% of the notional income and applying a multiplier of ‘13’ as per Schedule II of the Act, the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.97,500/-. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation under all other heads of non-pecuniary damages and on the total compensation of Rs.1,07,500/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 10. In M.V.O.P.No. 506 of 2000, the Tribunal examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and rendered the Award dated 25.03.2004, which is impugned in C.M.A(SR) No. 63016 of 2004. The Tribunal concluded the bus driver to be responsible for the accident in this case also, based on the evidence of P.W.1 and in the absence of any contrary evidence for the respondents including that of the bus driver. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal noted the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by her and awarded Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 4,050/- towards expenditure for removal of iron rod inserted in surgery, Rs.15,000/- for the grievous injury and fracture and Rs.1,000/- each for two simple injuries. A total compensation of Rs. 23,050/- was awarded with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 11. In M.V.O.P.No. 461 of 2000, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and rendered the Award dated 05.03.2004, which is impugned in M.A.C.M.A.No. 441 of 2009. The Tribunal, relying on Ex.A2, copy of remand case diary and the evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness, concluded the bus driver to be responsible for the accident, in the absence of any contrary evidence. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 50 years as per Ex.A4, P.M. Certificate and applied a multiplier of ‘13’. The Tribunal assessed the financial dependency of the claimants of the deceased notionally at Rs.600/- per month and considered the total loss of dependency to be Rs.93,600/- and awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages under all heads. On the total compensation of Rs.1,03,600/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 12. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenged these awards in the respective appeals, primarily contending that when the police concluded both the drivers to be at fault, and when the earliest version mentioned the jeep driver to be alone at fault, the Tribunal could not have overlooked either the exclusive negligence or the contributory negligence of the jeep driver and it could not have exonerated the owner and insurer of the jeep. The Corporation also contended that the compensation granted was excessive, with reference to the notional income fixed and the multiplier applied, without proof of the occupation or income of the concerned persons. 13. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000 filed C.M.A.No. 700 of 2005 seeking grant of compensation as claimed by them, contending that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and could not have been considered as an unskilled labourer. Loss of consortium and loss of estate should have been compensated with Rs. 15,000/- each and more than one-third of the income of the deceased could not have been deducted, towards personal expenses of the deceased. When the deceased was mentioned in Exs.A2 ad A3 as aged 45 years, his age could not have been taken as 60 years. The deceased has Ac.22.14 cents and doing agriculture and hence, the claimants desired that the compensation be enhanced to the extent claimed. 14. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for United India Insurance Company Limited, Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the claimants in all the other cases except O.P.No. 656 of 2000 and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants in C.M.A.Nos. 700 of 2005 and 4742 of 2004 are heard. 15. The first point that arises for consideration in all these appeals is about the responsibility for the accident. 16. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of the jeep, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, has brought to the notice of this Court that in C.M.A.No. 726 of 2005 arising out of the same accident, this Court held, in its judgment dated 16.11.2010, that the driver of the APSRTC bus alone was responsible for the accident which conclusion should hold good in respect of these appeals. It is true that in the said judgment in C.M.A.No. 726 of 2005, this Court concluded, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, that the conclusion about the responsibility for the accident as arrived at by the Tribunal need not be disturbed. While the said conclusion has every persuasive value, in the respective awards involved in this case also, there was no contrary evidence to the eye witnesses in each case about the manner in which the accident had occurred. The driver of the APSRTC bus neither appeared before the Tribunal nor was examined by the Corporation as a witness in any of the cases. In all these cases also, the remand case diary of the police shows that the bus driver was also arrested in the crime and was produced before the Magistrate concerned alleging him to be responsible for the accident. The conclusion of the Tribunal, based on the evidence of an eye witness in each case and not contradicted by any material is not susceptible for interference in these appeals, under the circumstances, apart from the same reasons, for a similar conclusion, covered by the judgment in C.M.A.No. 726 of 2005. The liability of the bus driver and the Corporation to justly and adequately compensate the claimants in each case thus cannot be in doubt. 17. The next question that arises for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. 18. In M.V.O.P.No. 504 of 2000, the age of the deceased was taken with reference to the inquest report, P.M. certificate and the evidence of P.W.2. and the multiplier ‘11’ was adopted with reference to Schedule II. The income of the deceased, as claimed by the claimants, was not accepted and was calculated only at Rs. 60 per day for 25 days in a month treating the deceased as unskilled labourer. The loss of dependency was calculated only at two-third of such income and the non-pecuniary damages were bundled into a single amount of Rs.10,000/-. Compensation awarded or the interest granted by the Tribunal are thus on a conservative side and cannot be further reduced. 19. Coming to M.V.O.P.No. 352 of 2001, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum and when the II Schedule of the Act, permits assessment of the income of even a non-earning person notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum, the same cannot be considered excessive, irrespective of proof or otherwise of the occupation of the deceased by the claimants. The age of the deceased was considered to be 50 years with reference to the age of both the claimants, rejecting the claim of the claimants that it was only 42 years as mentioned in Ex.A2 inquest report. The financial dependency was taken as 50% of the estimated income and multiplier is adopted only as per the II Schedule to the Act. All the non-pecuniary damages were bundled into a single sum of Rs.10,000/- and there could not have been a lesser compensation than that awarded. The interests or the costs awarded by the Tribunal also did not deviate from the normal scale and there is no reason to interfere with such compensation. 20. In M.V.O.P.No. 506 of 2000, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- for a fracture/grievous injury, Rs.1,000/- each for two simple injuries, Rs.4,050/- towards expenditure for removal of a rod inserted during surgery for the fracture and Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges, as opposed to the claim of the claimant of spending Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses alone and in spite of her being hospitalized for about a month. The treatment given at Government Hospital persuaded the Tribunal to be extremely conservative in its assessment towards damages leaving no further scope for further reduction of the compensation in appeal. 21. In M.V.O.P.No. 461 of 2000, the deceased was claimed to be earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per annum from the own land of Ac.12.00 and the Tribunal in the absence of any documents to show the ownership of the land, straightaway notionally estimated the financial dependency of the claimants at Rs.600/- per month or Rs.7,200/- per annum. The multiplier adopted was with reference to the age of the deceased, taking her age as 50 years as per the P.M. Certificate. The compensation of Rs.1,03,600/- including a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- for damages under all non-pecuniary heads cannot be conceived reasonably to be liable for further reduction. 22. In all the above four cases, it should be noted that the claimants have not preferred any appeals/cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation, which otherwise might have been justifiably considered to a reasonable extent. 23. Coming to M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000, the claimants have filed C.M.A.No. 700 of 2005, seeking enhancement of compensation, up to the extent claimed and hence, the assessment by Tribunal needs re-consideration. 24. The deceased is the husband of the 1st claimant and father of the 2nd claimant. It was stated in Ex.A2, Inquest report, and Ex.A3, P.M. Report that the age of the deceased was about 45 years. The noting of such age in Exs.A2 and A3 was obviously based on the experience of the independent panchayatdars and the expertise of the medical officer respectively and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the same should have been acted upon by the Tribunal. P.W.1’s stray statement that the deceased was aged about 60 years was straightaway taken advantage of by the Tribunal to adopt a multiplier referable to that age, but the innocence of the rustic witnesses could not have been used as an instrument of oppression against lawful entitlement of the claimants for just compensation under the beneficial legislation. Either the panchayatdars or the medical expert cannot be conceived to be in any way interested in the claimants to reduce the age of the deceased and if so, the age for the purposes of calculating the compensation should be taken as 45 years. The deceased was stated by the claimants to be earning Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per annum from agriculture. The Tribunal might not have been unreasonable in not accepting such income, in the absence of any documentary evidence, but it considered it reasonable to assess such income at Rs.1500/- per month, taking the deceased as unskilled labourer. 25. Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurer of the jeep, has stated, with reference to a notification under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time, that the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer was fixed at Rs. 1723.75 Ps. then. The real wages at the market level would have been a little higher and not lower and hence, the income as a labourer could not have been assessed at anything less than Rs.1800/- per month. The Tribunal took only three-fifth of the notional income as the loss of dependency for the petitioner which could not have been so, as apart from the wife and son, the deceased was not shown to be having any other family members to support or responsibilities to discharge and the personal expenses of the deceased had he continued to live should have been assessed at the normal level of one-third. The loss of dependency of the claimants should have been therefore, assessed at Rs.1200/- per month or Rs.14,400/- per annum. If so, the total loss of dependency on application of the appropriate multiplier ‘14’ comes to Rs.2,01,600/-. Apart from calculating the compensation, for loss of dependency in such a manner as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the further sums of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow, Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses also should be awarded, making a total of Rs.2,21,600/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.2,20,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced accordingly in respect of M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000. While so enhancing the compensation, the future interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation should be restricted to 6% per annum, in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid. Proportionate costs are to follow on the enhanced portion of the compensation also. 26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No. 441 of 2009, C.M.A.(SR) No.63016 of 2004, M.A.C.M.A.No. 4562 of 2004, M.A.C.M.A.No. 4740 of 2004 and M.A.C.M.A.No.4742 of 2004 have to fail and are accordingly, dismissed without costs. 27. C.M.A.No. 700 of 2005 is allowed in part, by modifying the Award in M.V.O.P.No. 656 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, dated 21.04.2004 by enhancing the compensation awarded by a further sum of Rs. 1,23,600/- payable with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs to be shared in the same proportion as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in addition to the compensation already awarded. No further directions regarding disbursement of compensation are given at this distance of time. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ------------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 7th December 2010 ksld [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121