THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO MACMA NO.679 OF 2007 PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO DT.09.06.2010 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and another …………Appellants Vs. Geetha Mehra and two others. ………………..Respondents. JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge), Hyderabad in O.P.No.2298 of 2002, dated 05.04.2006. The appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as ‘APSRTC’) challenging the award regarding the findings of the Tribunal holding that the driver of APSRTC bus caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving and also that the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal below is on higher side, which deserves to be reduced in the appeal. We have heard Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.Vijayasen Reddy learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. As regards point No.1, which relates to the question as to whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, the learned Tribunal relied upon Ex.A-10-certified copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A-11-certified copy of the charge sheet, which shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10 Z 9901. The very fact that the charge sheet has been filed by the police against the driver of the RTC bus reveals that the investigating agency after thorough investigation found that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent and the said fact has to be taken into consideration. Further, the learned Tribunal found the evidence of PW-2 who was driving the motor cycle by taking the deceased on the pillion seat, which is to the effect that the driver of the RTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. PW-2 is a natural witness, whose presence cannot be doubted at the time of accident and his evidence is consistent with the averments in the certified copies of F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged by one of the passengers and it also contains the same version. The learned trial court rightly rejected the evidence of RW-1, who is an interested witness stated in his evidence that the motor cyclist tried to overtake from left side of the bus without any horn and in a bid to overtake the bus from left side, the motor cyclist hit the road divider on left side. But the manner in which the accident said to have taken place and more particularly since RW-1 did not lodge any report before the police, we agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal on this aspect and confirm the same in this appeal insofar as it relates to the fact that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. The other question to be determined is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. As there is no documentary proof regarding the income, we are in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel. The claimants filed Exs.A-2 and A-3 licences, Ex.A-7 certified copy of certificate of permanent SSI Registration issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, R.R.District showing that the deceased was running kids foods at New Gayatrinagar, Jillalaguda, Ex.A- 5 the certificate issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar with regard to registration of kids foods run by the deceased and Ex.A-6 licence issued to the deceased for purchase, storage and for sale of schedule commodities i.e., foodgrains, edible oils, maida and sugar storage at New Gayatrinagar. Therefore, by his voluminous evidence we have to necessarily accept that the deceased was actively involved in the business and the mere fact that no document showing the actual income earned by the deceased was filed, is no ground to reject the plea taken by the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. The Tribunal in our view, rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and on the said basis, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased and by rightly applying multiplier ’13’ awarded compensation at Rs.10,75,000/-, we dis-approve the contention of the learned counsel for R.T.C., that when the income exceeds Rs.40,000/- per year, the multiplier mentioned in second schedule to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act or the one furnished by the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] is not applicable since the said contention is contrary to the settled legal position on the subject. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismiss the same. No costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _________________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.09.06.2010 tjs [1] ) 2009 (2) LS 29 (S.C.)