IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2661 of 2008 and C.R.P. No.4220 of 2011 M.A.C.M.A. No.2661 of 2008: Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar .. Appellant AND Sri K. Srinath Reddy and another .. Respondents C.R.P. No.4220 of 2011: Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar .. Petitioner AND K. Srinath Reddy and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A. No.2661 of 2008: The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.1077 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 31-08-2006. K. Ranga Reddy, a private employee, was travelling in APSRTC bus No.AP 9Z 9296 from Myloor to Hyderabad on 26-09-1997. At about 3 A.M. the bus dashed the railings of the bridge over Krishna river at Rangapur village due to rash and negligent driving at high speed and then fell into the river. Ranga Reddy and some others died due to drowning and Pebbair police registered crime No.71 of 1997. Ranga Reddy, aged about 37 years, was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and his wife predeceased him leaving only a minor son and aged mother. The son and mother depending solely on Ranga Reddy for living, claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner of the bus, the APSRTC. The appellant denied any rash and negligent driving and the other allegations of the claimants and contested the claim as excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver as probablised by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet, more so in the absence of any contrary evidence for the Corporation. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered it just to award Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transport of the dead body from the place of the accident to the place of his residence, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and in assessing the loss of dependency, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased from Exs.A.4 and A.6 to A.8 to be 35 years at the time of the accident. With reference to Ex.A.11 salary certificate and the evidence of Manager of the employer as P.W.2, apart from Ex.A.9 training certificate, the Tribunal concluded the income of the deceased to have been probablised to be Rs.5,500/- per month. One-third of the same was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying a multiplier of 17 as per the Second Schedule, the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.7,47,864/-. As the claimants claimed only Rs.4,55,000/- under this head, the grant was restricted to the same and the total compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- was directed to be apportioned at two-third and one-third between the claimants and was further directed to be payable with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The said award was challenged by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in this appeal contending that when the claim petition mentioned the age of the deceased as 37 years, the Tribunal could not have taken it as 35 years and the income could not have been taken as Rs.5,500/- without examining the person who issued the certificate of salary and the multiplier could have been taken only as 12 and not 17. Heard Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 with reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the multiplier 17 is applicable to persons between the age of 30 years and 35 years and for a person aged between 35 years and 40 years, the multiplier adoptable is 16. I f Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] were to be relied on, the appropriate multiplier applicable for a person aged between 31 and 35 years is 16 and for a person aged 36 to 40 years is 15. However, the Apex Court made it clear in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) that selection of multiplier will have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last, etc. The Apex Court was clear that selection of multiplier as adopted by Courts depended on different operative multipliers. Therefore, any minute mathematical precision was not expected in the selection of multiplier and if there was a variance of 1 or 2 numbers in the adoption of the multiplier, the difference did not make any difference to the ultimate entitlement of the claimants, as even if a lesser multiplier by 1 or 2 numbers or even more were to be adopted, the loss of dependency would have come to much much higher than the sum of Rs.4,55,000/- claimed by the claimants and awarded by the Tribunal. The salary was accepted to be Rs.5,500/- per month on the positive evidence of P.W.2, the Manager of the employer, to suspect whose evidence on oath, the Tribunal found no ground, more so in the light of proof of the qualification of the deceased by Ex.A.9 certificate issued by the Government and the probablisation of the deceased having telephone connection at Hyderabad showing the status of his employment. In fact, any future prospects of the deceased aged only 37 years even according to the claimants, were not taken into account and the technically qualified deceased would have definitely prospered in future, had he been alive. There are no other grounds of challenge from the Corporation against the impugned award and therefore, the appeal should fail. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J C.R.P. No.4220 of 2011: The civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 18-11-2010 in E.P. No.43 of 2010 in O.P. No.1077 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. In the execution petition filed by the claimants against the revision petitioner for execution of the award in O.P. No.1077 of 1999 by way of attachment and sale of the execution petition schedule movables, the Corporation contended that the entire outstanding amount was paid by it. The executing Court noted that the Corporation paid Rs.25,000/- on 11-01-2007 and Rs.7,88,332/- on 02-07-2010. The executing Court observed that the decree- holders are entitled to adjust the payments towards interest, costs and principal in that order in the light of the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court referred to by it. The executing Court also rejected the contention of the Corporation about its liability to deduct Rs.32,357/- towards TDS (tax deducted at source) to credit the same to the income tax department and opined that if the claimants’ income did not exceed the taxable limit, there was no need for payment of any income tax. It, therefore, considered the Corporation to be unjustified in paying the TDS and accordingly, directed the Corporation to deposit the balance amount due within two weeks, in default of which attachment can be sought for of the movables as claimed by the decree-holders. The Corporation challenged the said order contending that the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act are mandatory imposing a legal obligation on the Corporation to deduct TDS from the accrued interest, as laid down in binding precedents. The statutory deposit was made to enable the Corporation to prefer an appeal and the executing Court could not have calculated any interest on that deposit. Heard Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the decree-holders. The Income Tax Act imposes a statutory obligation on the persons making such payments to deduct amounts towards TDS in proportion to the interest income accrued in each financial year. If the interest income exceeds the specified level, the payer is bound to make such deduction, while it is open to the payee to approach the income tax department for refund of such amounts deposited in TDS, if the payee is not liable for income tax as presumed. If the payer were not to deduct the TDS, the appropriate prescribed formats duly executed have to be made available to it by the payee to enable it not to deduct the amounts without payment. The Court can take judicial notice of the mandatory procedures under the Income Tax Act and the executing Court in its order itself noted that it is not known whether the taxable income of the decree-holders exceeds the prescribed limits or not in the relevant years and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Corporation has already deposited Rs.32,257/- towards TDS with the income tax department and cannot be further burdened with double payment of the same and it is for the decree-holders to approach the income tax department for refund of the amount by following the prescribed procedure. The said contention has to be accepted under the circumstances. While coming to the adjustment of the deposit of R.25,000/- made on 11-01-2007 and Rs.7,88,332/- made on 02-07-2010 is concerned, the manner of appropriation of the payments towards the decree debt is not shown, in any way, to be deviant from the manner in which the executing Court directed such payments to be accounted for and the directions of the executing Court in this regard need not be interfered with. Therefore, the decree-holders in O.P. No.1077 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar shall approach the income tax department for refund of Rs.32,357/- deposited by the judgment- debtor Corporation with it, towards TDS concerning the decree debt under the award and the judgment-debtor Corporation shall extend every required assistance to the decree-holders in securing such refund in the event of non-liability of the decree- holders for payment of any income tax during the relevant years. The payments/deposits already made by the judgment-debtor Corporation towards the decree debt shall be duly credited towards the interest, costs and principal due under the decree in that order and if any balance is still due after giving credit to such payments including the amount of Rs.32,357/- deposited with the income tax department towards TDS, the judgment-debtor Corporation shall be granted two months time from the date of arriving at the balance due by an order of the executing Court. In default of the judgment-debtor Corporation making payment of such balance within two months from the date of the order of the executing Court, the executing Court can consider proceeding further with execution of the decree for the balance due in accordance with law. The order, dated 18-11-2010 in E.P. No.43 of 2010 in O.P. No.1077 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar is modified accordingly and the civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-09-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298