THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 3726 of 2008 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant, namely APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, filed this appeal questioning the award dated 12.05.2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in O.P. No. 598 of 2006, awarding compensation of Rs. 16,52,000/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the respondents-claimants as against their claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, contending that the same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. On the morning of 17.05.2005, while the deceased- A. Sreekanth was going on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 22G 1579 from Lalapet towards Tarnaka side, and on reaching the flyover, he met with an accident, when the bus belonging to the appellant bearing No. AP 9Z 322, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down and the rear tyre of the bus ran over him, his head was crushed and he died instantaneously. A case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the bus. On account of the death of the deceased, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the parents and respondent No.3, who is the sister of the deceased, filed O.P. on the file of the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the appellant, contending that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 23 years, just completed MBA and got an offer of appointment with monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- in a reputed company, and that they are dependant upon the deceased, and that due to the sudden death of the deceased in the accident, they have lost their dependency. The appellant filed counter denying its liability to pay the compensation and inter alia contended that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. The deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, and while the bus was crossing the speed breaker slowly, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The appellant denied that the deceased was aged 23 years and completed MBA and received offer of appointment with monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- in a reputed company. That the claim made by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant, and they are not liable to pay any compensation, and prayed to dismiss the O.P. The Tribunal considering the rival pleadings, framed two issues, namely whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and whether the respondents are entitled to compensation, and if so, how much amount and from whom they are entitled to claim. Before the Tribunal, the respondents-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A1 to A18, while the appellant examined R.W.1, but marked no document. The Tribunal having considered the issues in the light of the evidence let in by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent of the bus by its driver. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and after deducting one-third of the said amount towards his personal expenses, arrived his contribution to the family at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/- per annum, and considering the fact that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 24 years, based on Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, applied the multiplier 17, and arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.16,32,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal, by the order under appeal, awarded compensation of Rs.16,52,000/- to the respondents and directing the appellant to pay the same. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased just completed MBA, and he having not joined any employment, and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. He further submitted that since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted fifty per cent of his salary towards his personal expenses, and it committed an error in deducting only one-third. He further submitted that since the deceased was a bachelor, the multiplier applicable to the mother has to be taken, but the Tribunal committed an error in taking the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased. Hence, he submitted that the compensation payable to the respondents be re-calculated and reduced. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and the learned counsel for the respondents. The deceased at the time of accident was a bachelor. He was aged 24 years. He just completed MBA. It is the case of the respondents that the deceased got an offer of appointment under Ex. A18 with monthly pay of Rs.15,000/-. Even though the respondents proved the offer of appointment, but considering the fact that the deceased even before his joining employment, died in the accident, and further considering the fact that an MBA graduate would have earned not less than Rs.12,000/- per month, felt it appropriate to fix the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-, and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal, taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, and more particularly having regard to the judgment of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union[1], wherein it was held that minimum salary of a BE/MBA graduate can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. The deceased, as noted above, at the time of his death, was a bachelor. The Tribunal, admittedly, has deducted one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. But having regard to the above judgment, 50% of the salary should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, if 50% of the salary is deducted towards his personal expenses(Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-), his contribution to the family would come to Rs.6,000/- i.e. Rs.72,000/- per annum. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother has to be taken, but the Tribunal erroneously has applied the multiplier applicable to the deceased. At the time of the death of the deceased, the age of his mother was 48 years, and the multiplier applicable to the said age, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], is 13. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by applying the multiplier 13 (Rs.72,000/- x 13), the compensation to which the respondents would be entitled to is Rs.9,36,000/-. As per the judgment in Sarla Verma, only Rs.10,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of estate. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of estate” is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. Apart from this, the respondents are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, the respondents are entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,51,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly is allowed, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 16,52,000/- to Rs.9,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 31st October, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB) [2] (2009) 6 SCC 123