THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.331 of 2004 Dated 12-8-2010 Between: Smt. Salavemula Bavamma & others Appellants…. Vs. The AP State Road Transport Corpn. Respondent.. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.331 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award dated 1-12-2003 passed in MVOP No.735 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Kadapa. The MVOP was filed by the claimants- appellants herein seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the untimely death of Salavemula Hassan Saheb in the motor vehicle accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-on 29-8-2002 at about 12- 15 pm, the deceased-Hassan Saheb along with another alighted auto rickshaw and while crossing the road near spinning mill at Yerramachupalli village, an APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 9332, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed deceased, due to the impact of the same, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged 50 years and was doing business in cotton and cotton beds and earning Rs.One lac per annum. The Tribunal by the impugned order granted a sum of Rs.1,79,456/- as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. To prove the accident, the claimants filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR and Ex.A-2 copy of inquest report and Ex.A-4 copy of charge sheet. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. PW-2 eye witness was examined to prove the accident. PW-2 explained the manner in which the accident occurred. None was examined on behalf of the respondent- Corporation nor any documents were marked. Considering the evidence on this point, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 9332, which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for interference by this Court. 5. Coming to the question of award of just compensation, it has come in evidence that the deceased was doing business in cotton and cotton beds and earning a sum of Rs.One Lac per annum. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month which is on the lower side. Ex.A-5 is the commercial tax registration certificate in respect of the petitioner. Though there is no evidence to show that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.One lac per annum, but a minimum of Rs.3,000/- can be taken as his monthly income considering the fact that the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 (6) SCALE 129) is ‘13’. Inasmuch as there are five dependents, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA’s case, 1/4th amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13 (-) 1/4th) Rs.3,51,000/-. To this amount, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and other claimants to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling to Rs.3,71,000/-. However, the rate of interest on the total amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal at 9 % per annum is reduced to 6 % per annum in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA’s case. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated 12-8-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.331 of 2004 12-8-2010