THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.2826 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 30.12.2010, passed by the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P. No. 558 of 2009. The respondents-claimants filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of S. Lingam @ Linga Reddy in an accident involving the bus belonging to APSRTC. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. On 29.12.2008, the deceased, his friend V. Tirupathi Reddy and his family members went to Srisailam by Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 TV 2847 belonging to the said Tirupathi Reddy. On 30.09.2008 while they were returning to Hyderabad in the said car, and when they reached the outskirts of Veldanda village opposite to the rice mill, a bus bearing No.AP 11Z 3717 belonging to the appellant-APSRTC, proceeding from Hyderabad to Kalwakurthy, driven by its driver in high speed with rash and negligence, dashed against the car in which the deceased was travelling. The impact of the accident was so forceful that the car got crushed and it was dragged by the bus up to a distance of 40 feet. The deceased died on the spot, while the other inmates of the car received grievous injuries. The owner of the car, Tirupathi Reddy, who was driving the car, received grievous injuries and he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police of Veldanda Police Station, Mahabubnagar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 304A and 337 I.P.C. The deceased, as on the date of accident, was aged about 29 years. He was working as Production In-charge in M/s.Bhagya Lakshmi Electro Plast (P) Limited, Cherlapally and was drawing salary of Rs.15,500/- per month. The appellants-APSRTC filed the counter denying all the material allegations. They stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of car by the driver and not due to the driving of the bus by its driver. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues as to whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, and if so, from whom? On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked, while on behalf of the appellant-APSRTIC, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and in particular, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.3-Manager of Bhagya Lakshmi Electro Plast (P) Limited, Ex.A.8-salary certificate and Ex.X.3-salary particulars of the deceased, took the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,500/- per month. And after adding 50% of the actual salary to the actual salary, arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.23,100/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 10% of the said salary towards income tax, and arrive his income at Rs. 20,790/-. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted one-third towards his personal expenses, and arrived the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.13,860/- i.e., Rs.1,66,320/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal applied ‘12’ multiplier, and arrived the compensation at Rs.29,93,760/-, besides awarding Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral charges, totalling Rs.30,00,760/-. As the petitioners claimed only Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation, the Tribunal restricted the claim to the said sum. Hence, questioning the same, the appellant-APSRTC filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the APSRTC bus and Tata Indica car which were coming in the opposite direction of each other. He contended that R.W.1, driver of the APSRTC bus, in his evidence categorically held that there was no negligence on his part. However, without considering the said evidence, the Court below committed an error in fixing the entire liability on the appellant-APSRTC to pay the compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the actual salary to the actual salary of the deceased. He thus prayed that the compensation be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be just does not warrant reduction. P.W.2, the owner of Tata Indica car, who was driving the same, at the time of accident, deposed that on 30.12.2008, himself, the deceased and others were returning from Srisailam to Hyderabad in the car, and when they reached the outskirts of Veldana Village opposite to rice mill, the offending bus coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car, due to which, the car got crushed, himself and other received injuries and the deceased died on the spot. Nothing adverse was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Further, Exs.A.1 to A.6, copies of F.I.R, panchanama, inquest, post mortem examination report, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report and Charge sheet reveal that the driver of the crime vehicle was responsible for such accident. Hence, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was working as Production In-charge in Bhagya Lakshmi electro Plast (P) Ltd. He was getting salary of Rs.15,500/- p.m. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 29 years. As per the Judgment of the Apex Court i n Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], where the deceased has a permanent employment and is aged below 40 years, 50% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary towards future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 29 years and had permanent employment, 50% of the actual salary should be added to the actual salary of the deceased. Hence, no exception can be taken to the Tribunal in adding 50% of the actual salary to the actual salary of the deceased, and arriving his monthly income at Rs.23,100/- and deducting 10% therefrom towards income tax, and arriving his monthly income at Rs.20,790/-. The Tribunal deducted one-third of Rs.20,790/- per month towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased, admittedly, is having five dependants. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case, where the deceased has four to six dependants, then only one-fourth should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased is having five dependants, one-fourth should be deducted from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. On such deduction, (Rs. 20,790/- minus Rs.5,195.50 ps), the contribution of the deceased to his family would come to Rs.15,592.50 ps., per month i.e. Rs. 1,87,110/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier “18” as per the table in Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, but as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable to a person aged 29 years is “17”. If the annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the multiplier 17 (Rs.1,87,110/ x 17), the compensation to which the claimants would be entitled to is Rs.31,80,870/-. Apart from that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled to Rs.31,87,870/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and needs reduction. Even though the claimants are entitled to more compensation than what has been granted, but since they have claimed only Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal has rightly restricted their claim to the amount claimed, and no exception can be taken thereto. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ N.V.RAMANA, J __________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J Dt.02.12.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.2826 of 2011 (judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 2.12.2011 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121