HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Dated 31-12-2009 C.M.A. No.1218 OF 2001 Between: APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, (now redesignated as Managing Director), Musheerabad, Hyderabad another. ……Appellants. And: Anubolu Rajyalaxmi @ Samrajyam and others. ……Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No.1218 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 19- 10-2000 in O.P.No.1016 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), at Nizamabad wherein the claim of the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,10,000/-with proportionate costs and interest from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- Corporation. None appeared for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased namely A.Shivareddy who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4-8-1995. 4. 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the son, 3rd and 4th claimants are parents of the deceased. 5. According to them, on that day, the deceased was going on TVS Moped from Srinagar towards Nizamabad and at about 7.30 P.M, near Khanapur at Kaloor cross road, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2742 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Moped, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was doing cultivation and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the family. 6. The appellants-Corporation filed counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay compensation. 7. During enquiry, P.W 1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1-driver was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants. 8. On a consideration of evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driven by its driver-R.W.1. It is further observed by the tribunal that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-Corporation mainly contends that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving the moped in a rash and negligent manner. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased on the tractor at Rs.3,000/- per month without any basis of evidence. He would also further contend that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a., is excessive. 10. Regarding the accident, the evidence on record would show that on the date of accident, while the deceased was going on the TVS Moped from Srinagar towards Nizamabad side, one RTC bus was coming in the opposite direction from Nizamabad and the accident occurred at about 7.30 P.M., on the main road. The police registered FIR-Ex.A.1 against the driver of the bus and after due investigation, they filed a Charge sheet- Ex.A.5 against the driver. Ex.A.4-MV Inspector report shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. 11. A perusal of the Criminal Court record would disclose that the accident occurred as driver of the bus swerved the RTC Bus towards right side keeping on to the left side of the road. The deceased was coming only on a moped from the opposite direction. There was ample opportunity for the driver of the bus to have noticed the approaching TVS Moped in the opposite direction. The driver of the RTC Bus had apparently not taken any steps to avert the accident. The deceased was, in fact, only pillion rider on the scooter. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver as the bus was found to be proceeding by swerving towards right side which is a wrong direction. 12. Under the above circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus does not call for any interference and the evidence on record does not warrant any inference of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the moped. 13. Regarding the claim of compensation, the deceased was stated to be aged 40 years and as seen from the inquest report and Post Mortem Certificate, the deceased is stated to be having Ac.10.00 of land and also a tractor. 14. Admittedly, the land remained in-tact. The claimants if at all have suffered only on account of loss of supervision of cultivation by the deceased due to his untimely death. The tribunal has estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month from the tractor. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was hiring out the tractor or getting any income out of the same. 15. Under the above circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month from the tractor remains baseless and unsubstantiated. It is, therefore, considered that a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month i.e.,Rs.24,000/- per annum can be taken into account towards damages for the loss of supervision of cultivation by the deceased. The question of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses therefrom doesn’t arise, inasmuch as the said amount is estimated towards loss of supervision but not as income derived. Applying the multiplier of 12 which is adopted by the Tribunal, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,88,000/- which is awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses are quite reasonable. Thus, the total amount of Rs.3,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is held to be just and reasonable. 16. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a., is considered to be on the higher side. Having regard to the market rate of interest, it is considered that the awarding interest at 9% p.a., would meet the ends of justice. 17. In the circumstances, the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the petition. 18. In the result, subject to the above modification in respect of rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY Dated 31-12-2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No.1218 OF 2001 Dated 31-12-2009