IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.4703 of 2008 Dated:18-10-2011 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. And Smt. S.Syamala Devi and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.4703 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. against the award passed in O.P.No.2828 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.14,94,500/- to the respondents-claimants for the death of deceased Major D.Karnakar in the road accident that occurred on 22.06.2003. On 22.06.2003, while the deceased along with his friend was going in a Maruti Car bearing No. HR 01J 3603 from Hyderabad to Ongole, at about 12.10. hrs., on reaching the outskirts of Anneparthy on Narketpally- Addanki Highway road, within the limits of Nalgonda Rural Police Station, he met with an accident when an APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10Z 549, coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Maruti Car. On account of his death, the respondents-claimants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- from the appellant-APSRTC, contending that they are dependant upon him. That the deceased was a Major in the Indian Army and was getting salary of Rs.33,000/- per month, that he was aged 52 years at the time of his death, and that he still had six years of service and his service would have been extended by another three years and during this period he would have earned promotions and got higher salary. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter stating that the O.P. is not maintainable. That the claimants are put to strict proof regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, relationship of the claimants with the deceased, age and income of the deceased, his contribution to the family and holding of valid licence by the deceased at the time of the accident. Before the Tribunal, the respondents-claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A14, while the appellant-APSRTC examined R.W.1 and through him marked Ex. B1-copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 522 of 2004. The Tribunal, having considered the issues framed by it in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. The Tribunal basing on Ex.A.12 last pay certificate, the salary of the deceased was taken as Rs.20,655/- per month and taken the annual salary of the deceased as Rs.2,47,860/-. After deducting an amount of Rs.47,860/- towards income tax and 1/3rd towards personal expenses, assessed the annual contribution to the family at Rs.1,33,334/- rounded off to Rs.1,35,000/- and taking into consideration of the age of the deceased as ‘52’ years, applied multiplier 11, and awarded compensation of Rs.14,85,000/-, by reason of the judgment under appeal. The standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. mainly relying upon Ex.A.8 sketch prepared by the police at the time of observation of scene of offence contended that the driver of the Maruthi Car, who came in a zigzag manner dashed against the stationed RTC bus. Hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the gross income of the deceased at Rs.20,695/- per month for the purpose of assessing the compensation. He further contended that as the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of his death in the accident, the relevant multiplier applicable is 4.27, but the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier 11, for the purpose of determining the future loss of dependency. Hence, he prayed that the compensation be re-determined and reduced. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the judgment under appeal and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just compensation needs no reduction by this Court in appeal. The standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. made efforts to contend that the accident has taken place due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers. To appreciate such contention, we have perused Ex.A.8 sketch of scene of offence and Ex.A.7 scene of offence Panchanama coupled with the evidence of R.W.1 driver of the RTC Bus. R.W.1 has admitted that after seeing the opposite car, which is coming in a zigzag manner, he has taken to the left side of the road and stopped the bus, but the car came and dashed against the bus. Ex.A.8 sketch indicates that the bus was stopped in the middle of the road and that the accident has taken place while the bus was in the middle of the road. As such, the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be believed as it is contrary to the sketch Ex.A.8 prepared by the police. Apart from that the Tribunal has observed that the appellant has not taken the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi car in the counter. Taking into consideration of these facts, we hold that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on APSRTC as the driver of the RTC Bus has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased at the time of his death in the accident was working as Major in Indian Army. As is evident from Ex. A12-last pay certificate, the deceased though was getting more income, but the Tribunal has taken only his basic pay of Rs.12,900/- and D.A. of Rs.7,755/- and assessed his monthly income at Rs.20,655/- and his annual income at Rs.2,47,860/-, and after deducting Rs.47,860/- towards income tax, fixed his income at Rs.2,00,000/-. The deceased is having four dependants. Though as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], in case the deceased has four to six dependants, one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the fact remains, the claimants have not filed any appeal, challenging the deduction of one-third made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, we uphold the deduction of one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and arriving his contribution to the family at Rs.1,33,334/- and rounded off the same to Rs.1,35,000/-. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 52 years. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 11 and worked out the future loss of dependency at Rs.14,85,000/-. The multiplier 11 adopted by the Tribunal being in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, we reject the contention of the appellant- APSRTC that the multiplier 4.27 should be taken to a person aged 52 years, and uphold the compensation fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.14,85,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the respondents-claimants, as awarded by the Tribunal, are entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Though respondent No.1-wife and the respondents-claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, but as they did not file appeal, we confirm the amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said heads. Thus, in all, the respondents-claimants, as awarded by the Tribunal, are entitled to Rs.14,94,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the O.P. till the date of deposit of amount into the Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:18-10-2011 Ksp [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121