THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2419 of 1998 Dated:22.12.2011 Between: K.Vijayalakshmi and others .. Appellants And Nagireddy Jagadhiswara Rao and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2419 of 1998 JUDGMENT: K.Venkata Suryanarayanaraju, husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 to 4 and son of appellants 5 and 6, was proceeding on a motor cycle on 14.11.1988 from Yeleswaram to Pedasankarlapudi Village. A bus bearing No.AAZ 7193 owned by the A.P.S.R.T.C. – respondents herein, which was coming from Pedasankarlapudi Village to Rajahmundry, is said to have been dashed the motor cycle, resulting the instantaneous death of Suryanarayanaraju. The appellants herein filed O.P.No.548 of 1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, East Godavari District, claiming Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that he was an employee in a firm, later on he became a partner and was getting Rs.50,000/- p.a. towards his share. It was also pleaded that he was getting income of Rs.5,000/- p.a. on the agriculture of the joint family and was aged 35 years when the accident occurred. The O.P. was opposed by the respondents. The respondents pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased and that the amount claimed by the appellants is excessive. Through an order dated 09.03.1993, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and apportioned the same among the appellants. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. To prove their case, the first appellant herein was examined as PW.1 and two others as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent deposed as RW.1. Soon after the occurrence of the accident, the P.S. Prathipadu registered Crime No.127 of 1988 against the first respondent. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. PW.3 is an eye witness to the accident. He stated that when he was proceeding at that place on a cycle, behind the deceased at a distance of 10 to 15 yards, the R.T.C. bus coming in a high speed in the opposite direction, dashed against the deceased and death occurred on the spot. Taking these aspects into account, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rashness on the part of the first respondent. The finding has become final. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents and the appellants have placed before the Tribunal, the income tax assessments for various years, the salary certificate, and other testimonials of the deceased. It was pleaded that few months before the accident occurred, he became partner of a firm and earlier to that, he was an employee drawing the salary of Rs.1,700/- per month. Apart from that he was said to be having agriculture. Though it was pleaded by the first appellant that the income of the deceased was Rs.55,000/- per year, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.25,000/-. The income tax assessment was not that of the deceased, but of the firm. Therefore, this Court is of the view that for the sake of convenience and calculation, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.24,000/-. If 1/3rd thereof is deducted towards personal expenditure, the loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.16,000/- per year. The multiplier stipulated for a person of 35 years is “16”. The loss of contribution to the family would be Rs.2,56,000/-. Rs.15,000/- deserves to be awarded as solatium to the first appellant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The total compensation would be Rs.2,76,000/-. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The enhanced amount would be subject to the same arrangement as ordered by the Tribunal and shall carry interest at 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22.12.2011 KH