IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.94 OF 2009 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Madhira Depot. …Appellant A n d Suggurthi Meri and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.94 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 28-08-2006 in M.A.T.O.P.No.766 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Judge (FTC-II), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claim application filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein was allowed, awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on account of death of deceased Bala Swamy who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27-03-2001. The first claimant is wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as driver and on the date of accident, he was driving car bearing No.AP 31 4733 in which P.W.2 was travelling and near Brahmanapalli village, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3415, driven by the 6th respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car and resulted in the death of the deceased, who died while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Madhira. On a complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.23 of 2001 against the 6th respondent herein vide F.I.R Ex.A-1 and later filed a charge sheet-Ex.A-2 against the driver of the bus. The appellant herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant herein. 5 . On a consideration of the material available on record, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC preferred the present appeal. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal ought to have made an assessment of the compensation to be awarded duly taking the income and age of the deceased into consideration and applying appropriate multiplier. The impugned order does not disclose as to the income that was taken into consideration though it mentions the age of the deceased as 40 years and the multiplier adopted as ‘16’. However, it is not disputed that the deceased was driving the car at the time of the accident and even if his income is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month, which appears to have been taken by the tribunal and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ and deducting one- third towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,70,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal cannot, therefore, be considered to be excessive or unreasonable as the impugned award does not disclose that any separate amount was awarded towards loss of estate or loss of consortium. However, as per the decision of the Apex Court i n SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the interest that can be awarded is only 6% per annum from the date of petition. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the above limited extent of rate of interest granting the same at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 7. Subject to the above modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th April, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)