THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 821 of 2007 and Cross-Objections Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant-APSRTC has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, awarding compensation of Rs.10,99,140/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants as against their claim for Rs.27,00,000 contending that the same is on the higher side and needs reduction. While respondent Nos.1 to 3- claimants filed cross-objections contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and requires to be enhanced. On 13.07.2004 at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased Satyanarayana and respondent No.1, who is his wife, were returning from temple on F.R. Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. AP 37 AD 3278 and when they reached Z.P. High School at Ragajagaram, they met with an accident when an APSRTC bus belonging to the appellant-APSRTC bearing No. AP 10 Z 7955 coming from the opposite direction, and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit their vehicle. Upon the bus hitting their vehicle from behind, the deceased and respondent No.1 fell down. The deceased and respondent No.1 suffered injuries, and while they were being shifted to GSL General Hospital, Rajanagaram, the deceased succumbed due to the injuries. Due to the death of the deceased, respondent No.1, who is wife and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- contending that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 23 years; he as Properietor of Varalakshmi New Medical and General Stores, was earning monthly income of Rs.18,000/-, and that the appellant and respondent No.4, who is the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter stating that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not produced any material to show the age and income of the deceased. The deceased was not having valid driving licence and the Hero Honda was not have valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and other documents. The claim made by them is excessive, and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants examined P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A18, while the appellant examined R.W.1, but marked no documents. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the deceased died occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Further taking into consideration the nature of business carried on by the deceased, fixed his monthly income at Rs.8,000/- per month, and deducted one-third of the said amount towards his personal expenses. As P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the deceased at the time of his deat was aged 30 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 16.51 and arrived the compensation at Rs.10,56,640/- and further awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to respondent No.1, Rs.20,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 towards mental agony and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in all, the Tribnunal awarded Rs.10,99,140/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants and perused the judgment and decree under appeal. The contention of the appellant-APSRTC that the Tribunal committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus, and believing the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased to hold that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. This contention of the appellant-APSRTC cannot be accepted. The evidence placed by the wife of the deceased as P.W.1 shows that the accident took place at Z.P. High School and not at the place as stated by R.W.1 in his evidence. The fact that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver is also evident from the panchanama, which disclosed that the bus tyres had blood stains. Thus the Tribunal came to the conclusion that R.W.1, the driver of the bus was not speaking the true and accordingly while disbelieving his evidence, relying on the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, who was also traveling along with the deceased at the time of accident held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants claimed that the deceased was Proprietor of Varalakshmi New Medical and General Stores and was also having landed agricultural property, and even though they relied on the annual turn over of the business of the deceased to contend that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but the Court below felt that deductions towards shop rent, LIC, salaries of the employees including Pharmacist, telephone and electricity bills have to be deducted. The Court below after making reasonable deductions, felt it appropriate to fix his income at Rs.7,000/- through the Medical Shop business and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of supervision. Thus, the Court below fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, and deducted one-third of the said amount towards his personal expenses, and worked out his contribution to the family at Rs.5,333/-, and considering the fact that the deceased was aged 30 years, applied the multiplier of 16.51, and worked out the compensation at Rs.10,56,640/-. The Court below further awarded Rs.20,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants toward mental agony, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. Thus, in all, as awarded by the Court below respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,99,140/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization. As directed by the Court below, the appellant and respondent No.4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal as well as the cross-objections, and they are accordingly dismissed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 18th August, 2011 KSR