IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.3153 of 2007 Between: Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Smt.P.V. Subbamma and another ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: (PER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-10-2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1858 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the claimants in part and granted compensation of Rs.11,97,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit of the compensation amount. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are widow and daughter of Balasubba Reddy. He was working as Subedar (Clerk) in Artillery Center, Golconda, Hyderabad and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,980/-. On 12-03-2003 at about 6.00 a.m. he along with his wife, who is claimant No.1, came out of his residence at Family Quarters, Artillery center, Golconda, for morning walk. On reaching drive-way infront of the main gate of Family Quarters; APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2049 came at a very high speed and driven in rash and negligent manner, and dashed him and his wife. As a result, he and his wife fell on road and left wheel of the bus ran over him. He and his wife were shifted to Military Hospital, Golconda, where the Doctor examined him and declared him as dead. The claimants who are widow and daughter filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13,74,000/-. 3. The respondent-corporation, who is the owner of the offended bus, filed counter resisting the claim. The corporation took the plea in the counter that the deceased all of a sudden came on the middle of the road and thereby the accident occurred and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is on high side. 4. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place on 12-03-2003 at about 6 am due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2049 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? If so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 5. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and ten documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the corporation, either oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the corporation bus and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,97,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum and thereby allowed the O.P. filed by the claimants in part, by order dated 10-10-2005. Hence, this appeal by the corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant- corporation and learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-corporation submits that the quantum of compensation allowed to the respondents-claimants is on high side and therefore, the same is required to be reduced considerably. A further submission has made that the multiplier adopted by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is on high side and the same is required to be reduced to ’12’. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants supported the order impugned in the appeal. 10. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this appeal is:- Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is just and proper? 11. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was earning Rs.11,500/- per month and he was aged about 48 years as on the date of the accident. His employment was also not in dispute. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge has taken basic and D.A. in arriving at the net income of the deceased while ignoring the other allowances drawn by deceased. The net salary of the deceased as arrived at by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge does not warrant interference. The proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] is ‘13’. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge has rightly taken the multiplier ‘13’ for arriving the total loss of compensation. We do not see any error in the judgment of lower court either in applying the multiplicant or multiplier while arriving the total loss of dependency to the claimants. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J January 29, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3153 of 2007 (JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY) January 29, 2011 [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121