THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2613 of 2003 and Cross Objections (SR) No.71399 of 2003 %11.11.2010 # Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...PETITIONER VERSUS $ J.Pedda Bhumeswar ...RESPONDENT < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for PETITIONER: Sri L.Venkatesham Goud For Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy ^Counsel for RESPONDENTS: Sri K.M.Mahendar Reddy ? Cases referred (2009) 6 SCC 121 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2613 of 2003 and Cross Objections (SR) No.71399 of 2003 DT.11.11.2010 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant And J.Pedda Bhumeswar … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri L.Venkatesham Goud For Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri K.M.Mahendar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: COMMON JUDGMENT: While the civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning the award, dated 04.04.2002, in O.P.No.637 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the respondent has filed Cross Objections feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour. The Corporation is the appellant. The respondent, who is the father of a nineteen-year old boy studying Intermediate, filed O.P.No.637 of 1997 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of his only son in a motor accident involving the bus of the appellant. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,77,500/- as compensation, which comprises Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. At the hearing, Sri L.Venkatesham Goud, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. The learned counsel stated that as the deceased did not hold driving licence, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. The learned counsel further argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. He pointed out that the respondent is not a dependant of the deceased as he was having his own business and that at any rate, as the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the assessed income towards his personal expenses, instead of deducting only 1/3rd. Sri K.M.Mahendar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the above contentions and sought to sustain the award. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent has adduced oral evidence by examining himself as PW.1 and another person, by name, Chinta Laxman, as PW.2. He has also got FIR in Crime No.28 of 1997 P.S.Kammarpally marked as Ex.A1, a copy of inquest panchanama as Ex.A2 and charge sheet as Ex.A3. PW.2, who is stated to be an eye-witness, figured as LW.4 in the charge sheet, deposed that at about four years back, while he was at his printing press at about 12.30 pm, he has found that the deceased coming on Kawasaki motor cycle from Nizamabad direction and that the bus belonging to the appellant was coming from Karimnagar side driven at high speed and hit the motor cycle, which resulted in injuries to the deceased and that on his being shifted to the hospital, he was declared dead. The appellant has not adduced any contra evidence. On the basis of the available evidence, the Tribunal has accordingly held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant’s bus. In the light of the above facts, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. With respect to assessment of income of the deceased, admittedly the deceased was only a student without any independent income. The plea put forth by the respondent that the deceased was assisting him in his business was rejected by the Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence adduced by him. The Tribunal, however, has taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and has taken Rs.3,000/- per month as loss of income. The Tribunal has deduced 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in Sarala Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the Supreme Court held that where the deceased was a bachelor and survived by parents and siblings, 50% would be treated as personal and living expenses and 50% as the contribution to the family and that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependant upon the income of the deceased his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family as 2/3rd. In this case, it is not in dispute that the respondent alone was the other member of the family of the deceased. Therefore, applying the ratio in Sarala Verma’s case, 50% of the assessed income of the deceased needs to be deducted towards his personal expenses, instead of 1/3rd. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that award of 9% interest is on higher side, in my opinion, having regard to the point of time at which, the award was passed, such percentage of interest was ordinarily being accepted as reasonable rate of interest. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award on this count. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Having regard to the findings referred to above, the cross objections raised by the respondent stand rejected. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 11.11.2010 Note: LR copies to be marked. (b/o) VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121