IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4539 of 2003 Between: K. Anasuyamma & 5 others .. Appellants AND APSRTC & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4539 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.2289 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 25.07.2003. 2. Kotra Yadaiah Goud was travelling in Jeep No. ADG 8611 on 29.07.2001 about 2.00 p.m. when APSRTC bus No. AP 10Z 4619 dashed against the same near Really Village and due to the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus in high speed, Yadaiah Goud and some others died on the spot. Midjil Police registered Crime No.39 of 2001 against the bus driver. Yadaiah Goud was an agriculturist and a contractor by profession and was a Director of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Midjil. He was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month contributed entirely to his wife, three sons, a daughter and mother who are the claimants herein against the corporation seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its two officials contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and putting them to strict proof. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the relationship of the deceased with the claimants and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. 5. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13 during the course of the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eyewitness-P.W.2, corroborated by the documents and rejecting the claims of the driver of the bus as R.W.1. The Tribunal observed that if the APSRTC bus was running at a speed of 20 to 25 kilometers per hour as claimed by R.W.1, the accident could have been straight away avoided and the prosecution of the bus driver by the police was also noted. After holding that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident, the Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation for which purpose it did not accept the claims of the claimants in the absence of any documentary evidence and it assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.700/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 11 taking the age of the deceased as 55 years with reference to Ex.A-4-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal granted Rs.92,400/- towards loss of dependency and also granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and transport and rounded off the compensation awarded to Rs.1,10,000/- payable with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. It also directed apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 7. The claimants were aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and approached this Court with this appeal contending that the age of the deceased ought to have been taken with reference to Ex.A-6-Original Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed with reference to Exs.A-8 to A-10-Certificates. Even if he were to be taken as an agricultural labourer, the deceased must have been earning Rs.90/- per day or Rs.2,700/- per month with reference to the minimum wages payable to agricultural labourers at that time and interest ought to have been awarded at 12% per annum. 8. Heard Smt. D. Radhika, learned counsel representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. 9. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver being the cause for the accident is concerned, none of the parties challenged the same and it had become final. The consequential vicarious liability of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased Yadaiah Goud, therefore, cannot be in doubt. 10. The only question that is left for consideration herein is hence, the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 11. It is true that the deceased was mentioned to be aged 60 years in Ex.A-3-Inquest Report and Ex.A-4-Post Mortem Report, but it has to be noted that the mention of such age in Exs.A-3 and A-4 is only in approximation and not on any definite information or scientific evidence. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased was aged only 41 years by the time of her evidence before the Tribunal and the other claimants stated in the claim petition and the evidence that the deceased was aged 49 years. Their claims find corroboration from Ex.A-6-Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India in which his age as on 01.01.1995 was stated to be 43 years. Ex.A-6 cannot be criticized in any manner to have been manipulated for the purposes of making this claim six years later and on the broad human probabilities, the age of the deceased ought to have been taken as about 49 years by the time of the accident and death. 12. The deceased was claimed by the claimants to be an agriculturist and a contractor and P.W.1, the wife, claims that they owned Ac. 8.00 of agricultural land which was under cultivation and though she was not able to file any proof of the income, the claimants also stated that the deceased was the Director of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Midjil, which would have been possible only if he were an agriculturist. Exs.A-8 to A-10-Certificates by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the Sarpanch and the Village Administrative Officer of Donoor and the President and Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Midjil, corroborate the claims. Even Ex.A-13- News Report of the Eenadu Daily Newspaper mentions the family members to have told that the deceased was maintaining the family by running the jeep involved in the accident. The deceased who was hale and healthy by the time of the accident would have undoubtedly engaged himself in some avocation sufficient to earn a decent income to maintain himself and his six dependents. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assumes even in respect of non-earning persons an annual income of Rs.15,000/-. The minimum wages payable to even unskilled agricultural labourers at the relevant time were stated to be Rs.90/- per day in the grounds of appeal to contradict which there is no material for the respondents and if he were running a jeep, the minimum wages payable to a light vehicle driver at about the relevant time were more than Rs.3,500/- per month. Even if as an agricultural labourer, he has worked only for 25 days in a month and even if there were vagaries in the actual wages paid depending on the demand, the Tribunal could have taken the deceased to be earning a minimum of Rs.2,000/- per month even in a conservative view. If such were the income, as there are six dependents on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses could have been only 1/4th as per SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. On the balance of Rs.1,500/- per month towards loss of contribution to the members of the family, the appropriate multiplier that could have been applied will be 13 as per the same decision and if so, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,34,000/-. That apart, the claimants are also entitled, as per the same precedent, to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and if so, the total compensation that should have been justly and adequately granted to the claimants is Rs.2,54,000/-. The compensation awarded by the impugned award has to be enhanced accordingly. 13. However, on the enhanced portion of the compensation, interest can be confined to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. 14. In the result, the award, dated 25.07.2003, in O.P.No.2289 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and while the first claimant will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the balance of compensation shall be apportioned between the claimants 2 to 6 in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned. No further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding the disbursement of the compensation and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4539 of 2003 Date: 21st February, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298