IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.1704 of 2009 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing, Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Innarapu Pedda Yakub and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.1238 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Warangal, dated 09-07-2004. The factual background for the appeal is that Innarapu Raja Sekhar and his friend G. Jaya Rao were going on Hero Honda motor cycle No.AP 20C 8665 to Enjerla on 04-11-2000 at about 6.45 P.M. and in the outskirts of Koravi village, APSRTC bus No.AP 10Z 2641 coming in high speed rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle coming in opposite direction resulting in the death of Raja Sekhar, who at the age of 32 years was not only running Sri Shalimar Hair Cutting Saloon at Mahabubabad but also City College, National Open School, Private Study Centre at Yellandu. The parents and the younger brother of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the owner of the bus. The Corporation contested the claim contending that it was the motor cycle which was coming opposite rashly and negligently in high speed that hit the bus in spite of the bus driver slowing down the vehicle and taking it to the extreme left side of the road. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, due to which the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the contents of Ex.A.1 first information report and also referring to the award in O.P. No.294 of 2001, dated 30-06-2003 arising out of the death of G. Jaya Rao in the said accident to conclude that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the vehicle. The Tribunal also noted that the award in O.P. No.294 of 2001 was only claimed to have been the subject matter of pending appeal and consequently, the Tribunal concluded in favour of the claimants in respect of responsibility for the accident. The Tribunal considered the deceased to be aged 32 years based on Ex.A.2 post-mortem report and Ex.A.3 inquest report. Coming to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal observed that a barber in the area of Mehabubabad may be naturally getting a sum of Rs.100/- per day from a saloon and consequently, it assessed the income at Rs.2,600/- per month for 26 working days or Rs.31,200/- per annum based on its common sense and experience. The parents of the deceased were aged, but the 3rd petitioner, who is of unsound mind, was stated to be aged 34 years. The Tribunal consequently took the age of 35 years as the basis with reference to the age of the 3rd claimant, though the age of the deceased was stated to be only 32 years in Exs.A.2 and A.3 and applied multiplier of 17 with reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The loss of dependency after deducting one-third of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, was calculated at Rs.3,53,600/-. In addition to the same, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock and agony to the claimants and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, rounding off to Rs.3,66,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The APSRTC filed the appeal against the said award contending that the compensation awarded is highly excessive and questioned the Tribunal taking into account the age of the deceased for purpose of multiplier when he was unmarried. The Corporation also questioned the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day without any material. Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned award about the responsibility of the R.T.C. bus driver for the accident is concerned, notwithstanding that the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, is sought to be relied on by the appellant, the conclusions of the Tribunal are based on the earliest version in the first information report and also the conclusions of the Tribunal in O.P. No.294 of 2001 arising out of the same accident, in which the bus driver was concluded to be rash and negligent in driving leading to the accident. The said conclusions in O.P. No.294 of 2001 were not claimed or shown to have been, in any way, modified or reversed in any appeal and the said conclusions in respect of the same accident should hold good in respect of this accident also apart from the fact that the self-serving and uncorroborated interested claims of the bus driver need not be preferred to the earliest version given in Ex.A.1 first information report immediately after the accident. The said conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident should ultimately lead to the appellant Corporation being liable to compensate the parents and brother of the deceased justly and adequately. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was admittedly a barber by profession running a hair cutting saloon at Mehabubabad, the old Taluk headquarters of considerable population and importance and the assessment of the Tribunal of his income only at Rs.100/- per day even in the year 2001 cannot be said to be too liberal. The conservative estimate by the Tribunal led to its assessing the loss of dependency, after deducting Rs.10,400/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, at Rs.20,800/- per annum and the same need not be interfered with. Similarly, the grant of Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock and agony and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses also cannot be considered to be, in any way, excessive or exorbitant and they need no interference. However, in so far as the application of multiplier at 17 obviously with reference to the age of the deceased is concerned, it could not have been so applied in the light of the fact that the deceased was unmarried and the claimants were only his parents and brother, of course, with unsound mind. In such cases, it has been laid down by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] that even if the deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be dependent either for purpose of selection of the multiplier or for purpose of adopting any deduction. The mother was stated to be aged about 50 years by the time of the petition and in the absence of any definite evidence about her age, the same can be taken as the basis for arriving at the appropriate multiplier. As per Sarala Verma (1 supra), the appropriate multiplier would be 13 and annual loss of income should be multiplied by multiplier 13 for purpose of grant of compensation. If so, the compensation already awarded should get reduced by Rs.83,200/-. Effecting such deduction in the compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal, the balance of compensation to which the claimants are entitled can be rounded off to Rs.2,83,000/-. The learned standing counsel for the appellant also desired that there shall be more deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, but the Apex Court itself pointed out in the said decision (1 supra) that the percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline and there cannot be any hard and fast rule by which such deduction can, therefore, be measured. Without interfering with the percentage of deduction and other conclusions of the Tribunal, the compensation already awarded should, therefore, get reduced by Rs.83,200/-. In so far as the grant of interest at 9 per cent per annum is concerned, it is not shown by the appellant Corporation to be excessive than the then prevailing rates of interest or the rates of interest charged or paid by the nationalized banks during that period and 9 per cent per annum simple interest is never considered usurious or high in any civil proceeding. There is no reason to interfere with the grant of interest at this distance of time. The costs, of course, should only be proportionate to the compensation awarded and will get reduced accordingly. The impugned award has to be modified on the above lines under the circumstances. Therefore, the award, dated 09-07-2004 in O.P. no.1238 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge’s Court, Warangal is modified by reducing the compensation awarded to Rs.2,83,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and eighty three thousand only) with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-09-2010 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298