IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.NO.688 OF 2005 AND CXOBJSR.NO.16926 OF 2005. Date:18.12.2009. M.A.C.M.A.NO.688 OF 2005:- Between:- The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director. ..Appellant/Respondent And Gosu Kasamma and others .. Respondents/claimants And CXOBJSR.NO.16926 OF 2005:- Gosu Kasamma and others ..Cross Objectors/Respondents in CMA/ Petitioners in O.P. And The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director and V.C. .. Respondent/Appellant in CMA/Respondent in O.P. COMMON JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2003 passed in O.P.No.456 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,65,024/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused records. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Gosu Avulaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.12.1996. Claimant No.1 is the first wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and claimant No.5 is the son of second wife of the deceased Gosu Avulaiah. Subsequent to filing of the appeal, respondent No.2, who is the daughter of the deceased, died and her children are impleaded as respondent Nos.6 and 7, being the legal representatives. According to the claimants, on 29.12.1996, the deceased along with one Subbaiah and Penchalaiah was returning from the vegetable market and while they were proceeding to the other side of the road, an R.T.C. Bus bearing No.A.P.10Z 1942 of Venkatagiri Depot coming from Hyderabad and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries including head injury and died on the spot. A case was registered against the driver of the bus by Chotappal police. It is further pleaded that the deceased was working as a Dafedar in Survey of India and was earning salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. The appellant herein filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1- driver of the bus was examined on behalf of the appellant. No documents were marked on their side. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,65,024/-. Accordingly, an Award was passed for the said amount with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the R.T.C. filed the present appeal and the claimants filed Cross Objections (SR)No.16926 of 2005 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the deceased was aged 53 years and the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of ‘11’ though the suitable multiplier would be 5.7 as per the guidelines in Bhagawandas’s case. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short, “the Act”), the suitable multiplier is ‘11’ and the same is correctly applied by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents- Cross Objectors would further submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards pensionary benefits, which is not contemplated under law. 8. It is not disputed that the deceased was working as a Dafedar in Survey of India. Ex.A-6 salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Superintending Surveyor, Bangalore show that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.3,273/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.2,182/- per month. However, the Tribunal has further deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards pensionary benefits given to claimant No.1. 9. I n MRS.HELEN C.REBELLO AND OTHERS Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the Apex Court held as follows: “Thus, under the present Act whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of the accidental death and not other form of death. The receipt of the provident fund is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two.” 10. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, the amount, which is receivable by the widow of the deceased towards family pension, cannot be deducted from out of the income of the deceased, while computing the compensation, as the said amount is not relatable to the death on account of accident alone. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, it is held that deduction of Rs.1,000/- towards pensionary benefits, from out of the income of the deceased, is unwarranted. The suitable multiplier applicable to the deceased who was aged 53 years is ‘11’ as per the guidelines issued under the II Schedule of the Act. Even as per the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], the suitable multiplier is only ‘11’ and hence, it is considered that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Applying the multiplier ‘11’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,182x11=Rs.24,002x12=Rs.2,88,024/-. Claimant No.1 is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, and claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation of the dead body of the deceased, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.2,97,024/- but the same is limited to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, as claimed. The impugned Award is modified accordingly granting total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and cross objections are allowed, to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th December, 2009 AMD [1] AIR 1998 SC 3191 [2] 2009-JT-6-495 Supreme Court of India