IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST [1ST] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1417 of 2008 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, RTC Office, Mushirabad, Hyderabad … Appellant And: Nalla Pochamma & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1417 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 in MVOP No.912 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,38,300/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Laxman in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.02.2005. The first claimant is the mother and the claimants 2 and 3 are brother and sister of the deceased. On 26.02.2005 the deceased Laxman along with his friend Kishore, was travelling in auto bearing No.AP 13 W 1980 towards Hanumakonda and when the auto reached near the Agricultural Farm, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3343 of Parkal Depot, coming in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver, dashed against the auto, resulting in serious injuries to the inmates of the auto, including the deceased, who was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he died while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 21 years and was working as Compounder in Nikhil Hospital, Hanumakonda and was earning Rs.2,200/- per month and that all the claimants were dependent on his income. 4. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. (1) Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3343 by its driver or due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 13 W 1980 in which the deceased was travelling? (2) What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? (4) To what relief? 6. During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal gave finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. The Tribunal further held on issue Nos.2 and 3 that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,38,300/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly would contend that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, who was unmarried instead of deducting 50%. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium ignoring that the deceased was unmarried. 8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver is not seriously challenged. Based on the salary certificate Ex.A.6 issued by the employer-PW.3, the Tribunal rightly estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/- per month as Compounder. It is also not disputed that the mother of the deceased was aged 47 years and the suitable multiplier applicable for her age is ‘13’, which is duly applied by the Tribunal. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]’, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried. It is, however, to be noted that the deceased who was young man of 25 years, the loss of future and bright prospects of the deceased also to be taken into consideration in estimating the compensation. If that is so, the claimants should be entitled for more compensation towards loss of future prospects as well. However, the claimants have not preferred any cross-appeal or cross objections. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the award passed by the Tribunal need not be disturbed except that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is to be deducted, as the deceased was unmarried. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,33,300/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.07.2010 bss [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)