IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2005 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Smt.Sadeka Begum and others ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 28-09-2004 made in O.P.No.2810 of 2002 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court). 2. The learned Standing Counsel representing the appellants would maintain that the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court) (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the purpose of convenience) totally erred in holding that the driver of the RTC Bus was guilty of rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel also would maintain that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and in the light of the evidence available on record the compensation should have been negatived. The learned Standing Counsel also would maintain that when the claim was made for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacks) granting Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees three lacks ninety thousand) on the ground that the same would be just and reasonable compensation also cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the findings recorded relating to the earning capacity also are unsustainable findings. Learned Standing Counsel ultimately would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the MACMA to be allowed. 3. Per contra the learned counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the award made by the Tribunal and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded this court cannot in any way finding fault with such findings and the said findings are to be confirmed. Learned counsel also would maintain that even if the compensation claimed was only Rs.3,00,000/- the Tribunal is well justified in granting Rs.3,90,000/- especially in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in 2009 ACJ 2020. 4. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the material available on record. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record the following points arise for consideration in this MACMA: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal in O.P.No.2810 of 2002 to be confirmed or to be modified or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2.If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 6. POINT No.1:- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.2810 of 2002 aforesaid. The respondents herein as petitioners filed the claim praying for granting of compensation in view of the fact that Mr.Anwar aged about 35 years, a Painter, who was earning Rs.3,900/- (Rupees three thousand and nine hundred only) per month died on 13-11-2002 due to injuries suffered by him in collision of the RTC bus belongs to the appellant herein-the respondent in the O.P., while he was traveling on his bicycle near Jamia Masjid, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. Hence, the claim to be allowed. 7. The first petitioner is the wife, 2nd to 4th petitioners are the minor children and the fifth petitioner is the aged mother. They filed the said O.P. claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimed compensation was made under the following heads: “1. Transport to hospital … Rs. 5,000=00 2. Funeral expenses … Rs. 2,000=00 3. Loss of consortium … Rs. 15,000=00 4. Loss of estate … Rs. 2,500=00 General damages: 5. Compensation for loss of future earning powers … Rs.2,75,500=00 Total Rs.3,00,000=00” 8. In the counter-affidavit filed the said allegations had been denied and specific stand had been taken that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and there was no negligence on the part of the Driver. 9. On the strength of these pleadings the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the accident took place on 13-11-2002 at about 7.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the APSRTC bus number AEZ 3898 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. If so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 10. During trial the first petitioner – wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and eyewitness was examined as PW- 2. The person who lodged the First Information Report to Police was examined as PW-3. Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. The Conductor was examined as RW-1. But the learned Tribunal while answering first issue recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.11 to 13 and came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. While answering second issue the learned Tribunal further recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.14 to 18 and came to the conclusion that it would be in the interest of the parties to make apportionment. While answering third issue the Tribunal recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 and ultimately came to the conclusion that in the light of the facts and circumstances the Claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the present MACMA has been preferred. 11. The learned Tribunal at paragraph No.15 observed as hereunder: “There is the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 35 years and there is no contra evidence. Therefore, the multiple must be in my view, 14.81. Thus, the plaintiffs would be entitled to compensation worked out as under: 1. Multiplicand x multiplier x one year Rs.2,000/- x 14.81 x 12 : Rs.3,55,440=00 2. Loss of consortium for the 1st petitioner : 15,000=00 3. Loss of estate : 10,000=00 4. Funeral expenses : 2,000=00 5. Transportation to hospital : 5,000=00 6. Miscellaneous expenses : 3,000=00 Total : Rs.3,90,440=00 Rounded up to : Rs.3,90,000=00” 12. It is no doubt true that elaborate submissions had been made that though the claim was made for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacks only) in the light of the multiplier applied and in the light of the facts and circumstances inasmuch as on appreciation of evidence the findings had been recorded, the enhanced compensation granted by the learned Tribunal need not be disturbed. 13. The age of the deceased was 35 years. There is no doubt same controversy whether the multiplier applied 14.81 is correct multiplier or not. The learned counsel representing the Claimants would maintain that the correct multiplier is 15 and this aspect also may have to be taken into consideration. 14. Suffices to state that no cross-objections, as such, had been preferred. It may be that depending upon the facts and circumstances, if the difference of the amount actually claimed and the compensation to be actually awarded if exorbitant may be that need special circumstances after recording reasons in detail the enhanced amount also may be awarded. 15. On a thorough reading of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal this Court is of the considered opinion that no such reasons, as such had been recorded. On appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to permit the Claimants to have the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed for with interest as granted by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified to Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by the Claimants. 16. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacks only) instead of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees three lacks ninety thousand only) which had been awarded by the Tribunal below. Except this modification in all other respects the findings are hereby confirmed. It is needless to state that the interest granted on the said amount also is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J June 11, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2005 June 11, 2010