IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3194 OF 1998 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC. ......Appellant AND Smt N.Suseels and others ......Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri Y.Vivekananda Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. and arises out of the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in M.O.P.No.233 of 1993 dated 26.08.1996. 2. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of deceased N. Suryanarayanamurthy, who is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3. The said accident occurred on 22.09.1992 when the offending R.T.C. bus bearing No. AAZ 4420 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and the pillion rider, as a result of which both of them fell down. So far the deceased is concerned he was aged only 38 years at that time and he was working as an organizer in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company and was also working as an accountant getting a monthly income of Rs.2,500/-. The tribunal below considered on the first issue that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by RW-1 and found the said issue in favour of the claimants. To the extent of the quantum of compensation the tribunal below found that the evidence on record justify the assessment of loss of dependency to Rs.2,44,620/- by applying a multiplier of 12 considering the age of the deceased was only 38. After adding the conventional amounts thereto a total compensation of Rs.2,65,120/- was awarded. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on much higher side and as such the compensation awarded has necessarily to be scaled down. The learned counsel also submits that the compensation was claimed under various heads and the Tribunal below has granted Rs.18,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is also on the higher side. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the deceased was only aged 38 years and assessment of his progressing in life and future earnings are not taken into consideration by the tribunal below and considering the over all circumstances if the appropriate criteria was applied by the tribunal, the claimants would have got much more compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal below. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is, no doubt, true that the Tribunal below has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased but has made a proper estimation of 40% of the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the loss of the dependency and the compensation arrived at by the tribunal below cannot be said to be excess or unjust. Most importantly, the very basis of the contention of the appellant flows out of the evidence of RW-1, which is not offered for cross exam and as such the entire evidence was eschewed in that case, therefore, it has to be taken that there is no evidence on record so far as the appellant is concerned. In that view of the matter also the present appeal does not warrant any interference and is liable to be dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant made a submission with regard to rate of interest awarded at 12% per annum by the tribunal below. During the pendency of this appeal, 50% of the amount awarded together with interest and costs was directed to be deposited and the same has already been withdrawn by the claimants. In view of dismissal of the appeal the other balance of 50% alone is payable by the appellant. In the circumstances, therefore, the interest payable on the said balance however shall stand reduced to 7.5% per annum as against 12% granted by the tribunal below. To that extent the judgment under appeal stands modified. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 28th August, 2009 Ivd