IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A.NO.1397 OF 2007 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO.4178 OF 2008 Between in MACMA No.1397 of 2007: The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Vice Chairman.and another .... APPELLANTS AND K.Venkat Narsamma and others. …RESPONDENTS Between in MACMA No.4178 of 2008: Smt K.Venkat Narsamma and others. …APPELLANTS AND The A.P.S.R.T.C. and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.1397 OF 2007 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO.4178 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.1397 of 2007 is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. to the extent of compensation awarded by the Motor Claims Tribunal-cum- XVIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2507 of 2004. The claimants are claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, and the Tribunal had awarded an aggregate compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. To the extent of dis-allowed claims, the claimants have preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.4178 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts in brief are as follows: The deceased was the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2, 3, 6, as well as son of claimant Nos.4 and 5, working as driver of the tractor trailer and said to have been earning Rs.5000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/- per day as batta. On 24.08.2004 at about 3.00 a.m. he parked the tractor on extreme left side of the road and while sleeping in the said tractor, the offending bus belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C. bearing No.AP-10-Z-7596 came at high speed and dashed against the trailer which turned turtle and fell on the deceased. The deceased succumbed to injuries, though shifted to Osmania General Hospital. Therefore, the aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The A.P.S.R.T.C. resisted the claim disputing the allegations of the claimants and stated that the A.P.S.R.T.C. is no way involved in the accident. 5. During the trial, claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and she also examined PW-2 an eye witness to the incident. PW-2 stated that he was accompanying the deceased, when the trailer was stopped on account of puncture at the left side of the road, the offending bus came and hit the trailer at high speed. It is asserted by him that the front and rear side lights of the tractor were on, but in spite of that, the accident occurred resulting in the death of the husband of claimant No.1. The said evidence was also supported by Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report as well as Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet apart from Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of post mortem examination report and Ex.A5 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. The A.P.S.R.T.C. however, did not lead any oral or documentary evidence, as such, issue No.1 as to whether the A.P.S.R.T.C. is guilty of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, the Tribunal found the said issue in favour of the claimants. 6. In respect of quantum of compensation, though it was alleged that the deceased was drawing Rs.5000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta, in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal assessed the earning of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and the annual income worked out to Rs.24,000/- per annum and applying multiplier ‘18’, keeping in view, the age of the deceased as 29 years the total dependency was arrived at Rs.4,32,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses; Rs.43,000/- towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection. 7. In the appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., learned counsel contended that the quantification of compensation by the Tribunal below is not justified even on the principles as settled by latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS V DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’, whereas the Tribunal below has applied multiplier ‘18’. Similarly, the learned counsel stated that the compensation under other heads viz., loss of estate, expenses towards funeral and loss of consortium for widow can be only paid an aggregate sum of Rs.20,000/- as provided in para No.26 of the judgment referred to above. The learned counsel therefore, submits that the award under appeal requires modification to that extent. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly, the deceased was a driver and he was a technical person and as such his monthly earnings ought to have assessed more than Rs.3000/-, even if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the claim of Rs.5000/- plus Rs.100/- per day as batta. The employment of the deceased as driver of tractor trailer, therefore, merits at least an additional enhancement over the assessment of Rs.3000/- made by the Tribunal below. Learned counsel also submitted that so far as the widow is concerned loss of consortium is granted by the court below at Rs.15,000/- and the minor children as well as the parents of the deceased are also entitled to appropriate compensation under the heads of loss of estate and loss of love and affection. He also submits that the amount granted towards transportation and funeral expenses warrants no interference and overall seeks enhancement of compensation by increasing the monthly earnings of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel also relied upon the very same decision of SARLA VARMA’s case ( 1 supra) contending that since the dependents are more than 4 persons as per the para No.14 of the Judgment referred to above, when the number of dependents are 4 to 6 the deduction permissible is 1/4th. 10. I have considered the above said contentions on either side. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, admittedly, there is no evidence with regard thereto and except the statement of PW-1, it was difficult for the Court below to accept the earnings of the deceased as Rs.5000/- and Rs.100/- per day as batta as claimed. I am unable to take a different view, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the claimants in that regard. The assessment of monthly income by the Tribunal below therefore, warrants no interference. 11. So far as the appropriate multiplier is concerned, no doubt, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘18’. Based on the legal position and in view of the decision of Supreme Court referred to above, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ and the same is required to be applied. Applying the said multiplier the dependency would work out to Rs.24,000 X 17 = 4,08,000/- against Rs.4,32,000/- assessed by the Tribunal below. Thus applying ratio of decision ( 1 supra) the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.3000 X 1/4 = 750/-; 3000/- (-) 750/- = 2350 X 12 X 17 = 4,79,400/-. As against the other amounts, in paragraph No.26 of the judgment referred to above, an aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and funeral expenses would be appropriate. However, keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses needs no interference. Thus, with the modification as above, the amount awarded will stand substituted by the revised interest at 6% per annum against one allowed by the Tribunal at @7.5% per annum, scaled down in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. 12. The appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. and claimants is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J JULY, 21, 2010 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298