IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2992 of 2003 Between: Karnataka State Road Transport Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore, Karnataka ..... Appellant And H. Rekha and 4 others …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1282 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy, dated 8-7-2002. The factual background for the appeal is that Praveen Kumar, husband of the 1st respondent herein and father of respondents 2 and 3, was going in his Maruthi Car AP-9N-740, when Bus No.KA-19-F-1405 of the appellant, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against the car. Praveen Kumar was declared dead when he was taken to the hospital and Kota police registered Crime No.119 of 1997. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 herein claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents to the claim alleging Praveen Kumar aged 40 years to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month as the Manager of Andhra- Bombay Carriers, a transport Company. While respondents 1 and 3 to the claim did not contest, the 4th respondent to the claim put the claimants to strict proof of the same, while the 2nd respondent to the claim contended that its bus was going very slowly on the extreme left side of the road, when the Maruthi car driven rashly and negligently attempted to overtake an Ambassador Car and dashed against the ambassador car first and then against the bus due to inability to control the speed. The car then dashed against the wall of Mahalingeswar temple and hence, the bus driver is no way responsible for the accident. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the insurance of the car and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, accepting the evidence of PW.2, corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.4-Charge sheet and rejecting the claims of the driver of the bus as RW.1. The Tribunal opined that the investigation by the police should be preferred than the interested claims of RW.1. While the Tribunal found the owner and insurer of Maruthi car to be, hence, not liable to pay any compensation, it considered the deceased to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month as claimed and while not relying on the business in lorries said to have been carried on by the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,700/- per month after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. On the annual loss of dependency of Rs.32,400/-, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 12.79 and apart from such amount of Rs.4,14,396/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The compensation was rounded off to Rs.4,30,000/- on which interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs were awarded. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The 2nd respondent to the claim filed this appeal contending that the Tribunal should have accepted the version of RW.1 about the manner of accident and the evidence of PW.2 could not have been preferred. The age of the deceased was assessed at 40 years without dependable evidence and even without production of the relevant registers of the employer or any books of account or income tax returns, the Tribunal concluded the deceased to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month, though his lorries were seized and sold by his financiers. The appellant, therefore, desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri A. Rangacharyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for respondents-1 to 3/claimants and Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for the 5th respondent are heard. None entered appearance for the 4th respondent before this Court. The points for consideration are about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of just and adequate compensation. It is true that the driver of the bus stated as RW.1 on oath before the Tribunal about the Maruthi car causing the accident while trying to overtake an ambassador car due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi car. But RW.1 did not appear to have placed his version before the police at the earliest opportunity by way of any complaint though he tried to claim that he reported the matter. The police, the statutory investigating agency, conducted an independent investigation confirming the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver alone to have caused the accident as alleged in the earliest version Ex.A.1-FIR and the independent assessment in Exs.A.2 and A.3 inquest reports. The police version should be preferred than the interested and self-serving claims of RW.1, which the Tribunal did, even if the evidence of PW.2, the eye-witness, were to be suspected for any reason. The conclusion of the Tribunal based on the oral evidence of PW.2 and the independent documentary evidence, hence, cannot be subjected to any reversal. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was taken as 40 years with reference to the inquest reports and the Post Mortem report and the opinion of the independent panchayatdars and the medical expert forming the basis for such assessment by the Tribunal in the absence of any other evidence cannot be faulted. The deceased working as Manager of Andhra-Bombay Carriers, a transport company, by the time of his death was not disputed and the Tribunal, while rejecting the claims of the claimants about Praveen Kumar being engaged in any other avocation and earning any other income, was cautious enough to accept only the evidence of PW.3, a witness from the employer, who produced Ex.A.15-Pay slips. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the salary income shown by Ex.A.15 towards personal expenses of the deceased and then calculated the loss of dependency applying the multiplier of 12.79. In fact, if Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] were to be adopted, the multiplier that would have been applied would have been 15 or at least 14 and the Tribunal did not award any other damages towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimants are entitled except the loss of consortium. This assessment also cannot be found fault with and under the circumstances, the appeal, hence, cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298