THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1827 of 2010 and M.A.C.M.A.No.2699 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.1297 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur on 17.08.2010. The M.A.C.M.A. No.1827 of 2010 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. The M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No.2623 of 2011 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with delay and the delay was condoned as per the Orders in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3683 of 2011 on 20.10.2011. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1827 of 2010 have filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.10.2008. According to the petitioners on 10.10.2008 the deceased boarded the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1530 (Tenali-Vijayawada Nonstop). The driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing No.KL 08 AE 1188 on Kanakadurga varadhi, as a result of which, the inmates of the bus including the deceased sustained injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and the deceased died on 11.10.2008 while undergoing treatment. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 52 years and working as Chief Manager in State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad and drawing an amount of Rs.36,976/- per month towards salary. The 1st respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. has opposed the claim of the petitioners by filing counter contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. The 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, also filed counter pleading that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and they are not liable to pay any compensation. 3rd respondent, who is the insurer of the said lorry, also adopted the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles i.e. APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 1530 and Lorry bearing No.KL 08 AE 1188? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, the 1st petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus. The standing counsel for APSRTC has pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which has suddenly came across the road. In support of his contention, he relied upon the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 is the driver of the bus. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of R.W.1 and observed that the R.W1 admitted in his cross-examination that he was trying to overtake the lorry on Kanakadurga Varadhi and the minimum speed of the bus is 60 Kms per hour. On the above said evidence, the Tribunal has found that there is no speed limit for nonstop bus and trying to overtake the lorry on Kanakadurga Varadhi itself shows the negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and front side portion of the bus was also damaged as he has hit the backside of the lorry and the investigation done by the police also reveals that there is rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. With regard to quantum of compensation, the claimants’ counsel has pleaded that even though they produced the evidence to show that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.36,976/- per month, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that Rs.15,011/- as monthly income and deducted 50% of the salary towards his personal expenses and applied wrong multiplier ‘8’, thereby awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,480/-. If the salary of the deceased as Rs.36,976/- is accepted and 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses and proper multiplier is applied, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- as prayed for by them. To establish the income of the deceased, the petitioners examined P.W.2 and got marked Ex.X.1, the salary particulars of the deceased. As per Ex.X.1 the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.36,976/- and net salary comes to Rs.15,011/- after making deductions of Rs.21,965/-. On examination of the deductions made from the gross salary, except the income tax, profession tax and contribution to the welfare fund, the other amounts are not deductable from the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of arriving at the monthly income of the deceased, but the Tribunal has taken into consideration only the net salary of the deceased. After making the above deductions of income tax, profession tax and contribution to the employees union (in all Rs.1,500/-), the monthly income of the deceased comes to (Rs.36,976 – Rs.1,500) Rs.35,476/-. Since the claimants are wife and two children, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.11,825/-. After deducting 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.35,476 – Rs.11,825 = 23,651/- per month. As per Ex.A.9, the age of the deceased is ‘58’ years as on the date of his death. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the proper multiplier applicable for the said age group is ‘9’. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.23,651 X 12 X 9 = Rs.25,54,308/-. As per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for the 1st petitioner towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for Rs.25,74,308/-. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1827 of 2010 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,74,308/- from Rs.7,24,980/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2699 of 2011 is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:20-10-2011 Ksp