THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1437 of 2003 JUDGMENT: APSRTC is the appellant. It filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No.433 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.1998 at about 5.30 pm, the deceased and two other persons were travelling in an auto bearing Registration No.37/T/7314 to go to Tanuku on NH-5 and when they reached in between Peravali and Khandavalli Village, RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP9Z 6686 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the said auto, on account of which, he died on the spot and others sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.3,590/-. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, accordingly laid a claim for Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. The claim was resisted by the APSRTC by filing counter denying the income and age of the deceased. It was contended that the driver of the bus was not negligent and that the APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that all the allegations averred in the petition and the manner of the accident as narrated in the petition are false. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.AP9Z 6686 by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- APSRTC contended that the driver of the bus is not at fault and it is the driver of the auto, who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in fatal accident, and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive and exorbitant. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. It is evident from Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A4-charge sheet that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.AP9Z 6686. Therefore, the Tribunal in the absence of any rebuttal evidence worth inspiring confidence of Court has rightly observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which in my considered opinion cannot be found fault with. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded, basing on the salary certificate, Ex.A5, the Tribunal has rightly taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,334/- per month and Rs.40,008/- per annum (Rs.3,334/- x 12) and out of the said amount 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses and calculated the net income per annum at Rs.26,672/-. But, however, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of ‘17’. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased is ‘16’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,26,624/- (Rs.26,672/- x 16). A sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium is hereby awarded. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,46,624/- towards compensation. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part. No costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121