HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No 3456 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. challenging the order dated 17.3.2008 in O.P. No. 1954 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent-claimants, filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 15.6.2005, while the deceased Ch. Ramachandraiah was returning on his scooter bearing Registration No. AP 12 9814 from Serisengandla Village, a bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation bearing Registration No. AP 11 Z 5080 came in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury, besides sustaining some other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmonia General Hospital, Hyderabad where he succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment. The respondents, who are the wife, mother and children of the deceased filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/-. While opposing the O.P., the appellant-Corporation filed its counter stating that while the driver of the bus stopped the bus near Amangal Bus depot, he noticed a cruiser vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. The deceased, who was also proceeding in the opposite direction was driving the scooter at a high speed tried to over take the cruiser. The driver of the bus took the bus to the extreme left side of the road to facilitate to cruiser to by pass it and to avert any accident involving the deceased. However, the deceased lost control owing to the high speed and hit the bus. It pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased. Hence, the appellant-Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation amount. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident resulting in death of Ch. Ramachandraiah occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5080 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove their case, the 1st respondent, who is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1 besides examining the eye witness to the incident as P.W.2. She also got examined the Sarpanch of Deveneni Pedakkal Village as P.W.4. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs. 8,44,000/- as compensation. However, as the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal, the Tribunal restricted the compensation amount to the amount claimed. Aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation filed the present appeal. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was also responsible for the accident and Tribunal without taking the same into consideration, has erred in observing that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus alone. He further contended that the deceased was coming in the opposite direction and in an attempt to overtake the cruiser, he lost control and hit the right side head light of the bus, as a result, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. He further contended that even though there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and erroneously granted an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- as compensation. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and stated that the impugned order does not require any interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents filed Exs. A1 and A2, copies of FIR and charge sheet to prove that the deceased died in the accident, which occurred on 15.6.2005. They have also examined an eye witness to the incident as P.W.2, who categorically stated in his evidence that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. It is also seen from the record that for the reasons best known to it, the Corporation did not choose to examine the driver of the bus, who drove the bus on the date of accident. Further, the appellant-Corporation also did not file any contra evidence to disprove the same, in the absence of which, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal of that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-corporation needs no interference. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the respondents-claimants pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing three different jobs, viz., as Karboar of Pedakkal Gram Panchayat; Paid Secretary to the Milk Centre and as Agent of PACL and in order to prove the same, the respondents also got examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 and also filed Exs.A5 and A6, Salary Certificates. In the absence of any contra evidence let in by the appellant- Corporation to disprove the same, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. In so far as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of the deceased applied the multiplier of 17. Therefore, while taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, it rightly assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 8,16,000/- (48000 x 17). In addition to this, the Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate; Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 1,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, to which the claimants are rightly entitled to. In all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 8,44,000/- as compensation. However, as the respondents-claimants filed claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal restricted the compensation amount to the claim amount. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly awarded a total sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation together with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Hence, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 31st March, 2011 pnb