THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.589 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the APSRTC questioning the Award dated 01-04-2008 in O.P.No.2218 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,17,000/- in favour of the respondents herein, hereinafter referred to as the claimants. The brief facts are that on 13-07-2006 one, Sri Narayana Reddy (husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 4) while traveling along with his sister as pillion rider (P.W.2) in his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 10 Q 7819, was hit by the bus belonging to the appellant herein, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed in the Hospital. The claimants filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal formulated issues, whether the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle; and whether the claimants were entitled for compensation; and if so, to what amount. The Tribunal recorded a finding against the appellant and held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The Tribunal based on the material placed before it, awarded a total sum of Rs.4,17,000/- and apportioned the amounts among the claimants. The present appeal is directed against the said Award. Heard both sides. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. He would further contend that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of ’14.81’, which resulted in payment of excess compensation towards loss of income and expectancy of life. Per contra, Sri K.Dhananjaya Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, would contend that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same does not require interference by this Court. In order to prove rash and negligent driving, the claimants examined P.W.2, who was an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 was a pillion rider in the motor vehicle which the deceased was driving. The witness unequivocally stated that while they were proceeding on the motor cycle, the bus of the appellant bearing registration No.AP 9 ZA 8298 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle which resulted in the grievous injuries to the deceased. In the cross- examination, she reiterated the same statement and the appellant could not elicit any incriminating statement from the said witness. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is evident that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant did not adduce any evidence. It did not even examine its own driver to rebut the allegation of the claimants. Having regard to the said facts, it is apparent that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years. Although it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, no evidence to support the said claim was adduced. The Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum income at Rs.3,000/- per month (apparently at Rs.100/- per day) and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and calculated the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘16’ and awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of income and future expectancy of life. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of applying multiplier ’14.81’. The contention cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC”[1]. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that in the case of deceased whose age was between 31 to 35, the right multiplier is ‘16’. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application of multiplier ‘16’ in this case is wrong. Applying the same, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.3,84,000/- awarded towards loss of income and future expectancy is incorrect. The amounts awarded under the other heads have not been disputed. In the above analysis, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive and the Award does not require any interference. The appeal is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 17th June, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A. C.M.A. No.589 of 2009 Date : 17-06-2010 Between : Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its managing Director, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another .. Appellants And S.Latha and others .. Respondents [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121