HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1825 of 2001 DATED: 18.06.2010 BETWEEN: BETWEEN: A.P.S.R.T.C. REP.BY ITS Managing Director .. Appellant And Bonagala Manikyam and others .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1825 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C-second respondent before the Tribunal against the order, dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal in O.P.No.667 of 1999. 2. The A.P.S.R.T.C is the appellant herein against which and in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 the order was passed granting compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- on account of the death of one B.Deen Dayal, aged 27 years in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.06.1999 near Kotagandi and Dharmaram, Warangal District. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The appellant-APSRTC challenged the award on the following grounds: 1. Basing on the evidence forthcoming before it, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 36 9755 or at least that there was contributory negligence on the part of the jeep driver. 2. The first respondent-father of the deceased being an employee in APSRTC and the second respondent- unmarried sister of the deceased being dependant on the first respondent-father, both the respondents cannot be considered as dependents on the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to them. 3. In the alternative it is contended that computation of compensation making 1/3rd deduction from the salary of the deceased and selecting multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased is erroneous and as such even if it is held that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation the method basing on which compensation amount was computed is erroneous and computation has to be made afresh following correct principles governing the subject. 5. As regards the first contention it may be noticed that the evidence available on record as to the manner in which the accident was said to have taken place is that of the first respondent, who is examined as PW.1. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident and he is the father of the deceased. From his evidence it appears that in the accident several passengers received injuries and four passengers including the deceased died. Ex.A1-first information report also indicates that a case in Crime No.72 of 1999 of Geesugonda Police Station was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus, but the said evidence was not accepted by the learned Tribunal for the reason that the APSRTC bus driver figuring an accused in the Criminal case and also on the ground that he could not be expected of giving evidence against the appellant corporation. Since the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on this aspect is based on evidence and reasoning needs no interference in this appeal by this Court. Interference is warranted only when the finding of Tribunal below is perverse. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and thus this point is answered against the appellant corporation. POINTS 2 AND 3: 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation would contend that since the first respondent on the date of accident was an employee in APSRTC, not depending on the earnings of the deceased, the second respondent, who is the unmarried sister being dependant on the first respondent, the Tribunal went wrong in considering respondents 1 and 2 as dependants on the deceased. It may be stated as to this that the first respondent was aged 57 years on the date of accident and the second respondent being unmarried cannot be said to be solely depending on the first respondent. From the evidence on record, it can be understood that she was in fact, depending on the deceased. Further the deceased is not unmarried and he was married to one Krupa Rani and subsequently the marriage was dissolved. There was a pre-litigation settlement arrived at by the first respondent and the wife of the deceased viz. Krupa Rani,vide proceedings in L.S.A.No.47 of 2000, according to which the said Krupa Rani, who was one of the dependants on the deceased received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the first respondent, father of the deceased and relinquished her claim in all the retirement benefits of the deceased. She also agreed as per the said settlement that she would not claim any job in APSRTC on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband. The proceedings in L.S.A.No.47 of 2000 of the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal were marked asEx.A.4 and the affidavit filed by Krupa Rani was marked as Ex.B.5. 7. The circumstances referred above, thus, indicate that the deceased is a married person. There was a pre-litigation settlement between the first respondent and the wife of the deceased Krupa Rani. Therefore, the contention that the computation has to be made on the assumption that the deceased is a bachelor has no force at all. The first respondent, who was retired one year after the death of the deceased, the second respondent being unmarried can be considered as the dependents on the deceased and the fact that Krupa Rani, wife of the deceased received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the first respondent under the settlement in L.S.A.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal, further indicates that the wife of the deceased, who is one of the dependants relinquished the claim for monetary consideration. Considering all these facts, according to me, the learned Tribunal rightly computed the compensation considering the deceased as married person having dependants and by applying the multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased. The contentions urged on behalf of the appellant corporation on these two points also have no force and thus, these points are answered against the appellant corporation and in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 18.06.2010 kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 1825 of 2001 DATED: 18.06.2010