IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3079 of 2003 Between: District Medical Health Officer, Guntur and another .. Appellants AND Nethula Koteswaramma and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.906 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 10-04-2003. The factual background for the appeal is that Nethula Peda Koteswara Rao and Muvva Gangaiah were proceeding on cycles from Amaravathi on 23-08-1999 at about 2 P.M. and near the tractor shed on Guntur road, jeep No.AP 9R 346 coming in high speed without blowing horn and driven rashly and negligently dashed against them. Koteswara Rao died and Gangaiah was injured due to the accident and the dependents of Koteswara Rao filed M.V.O.P. No.906 of 1999 claiming that Koteswara Rao aged about 44 years was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from cultivation and was contributing his income to the family and they claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents owning the jeep. M.V.O.P. Nos.906 and 907 of 1999 arising out of the same accident were tried together and the respondents defended themselves claiming that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the jeep driver and that the cyclist with pillion rider got himself confused, lost his balance and fell under the jeep. The respondents claimed that there was no scope at that point of the road to drive at a speed of more than 25 kilo metres per hour. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues in both the claim petitions about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined during the course of joint enquiry P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep as proved by P.W.2, the injured, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 inquest report and Ex.A.6 charge-sheet. The Tribunal refused to accept the evidence of the jeep driver examined as R.W.1 who admitted that the relevant criminal case against him was still pending. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Koteswara Rao at Rs.15,000/- per annum, deducted one-third of the same towards his personal expenses and assessed his contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Ex.A.3 post-mortem certificate was accepted as showing his age at 44 years and applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.1,50,000/-. Granting another Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 9 per cent per annum and costs directing the claimants to pay Court fee on the difference of Rs.25,000/-. The respondents challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the death of Koteswara Rao was due to his own rash and negligent driving of the cycle and the Tribunal did not apply the appropriate multiplier. The compensation awarded is not based on any documentary evidence and hence, the appellant desired the award to be reversed. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants are heard. The point for consideration is whether the liability of the respondents and the quantum of compensation as decided by the Tribunal have to be interfered with. The evidence on record clearly showed that the police on investigation found R.W.1 driver of the jeep to be guilty of an offence punishable under law due to his rash and negligent driving and prosecuted him under Ex.A.6. The independent findings of the statutory investigating agency have to be necessarily preferred than the interested claims of R.W.1 and the version was the same since inception as seen from Ex.A.1 first information report which was corroborated by independent panchayatdars as seen from Ex.A.2 inquest report. P.W.2 was injured himself, to doubt whom the Tribunal found no reason and the appreciation of the oral evidence by the Tribunal, which had observed the demeanour of the witness, cannot be interfered with but for any compelling reasons. The ownership of the vehicle with the respondents is not in dispute nor is the entrustment of the vehicle to R.W.1 for driving in dispute and on the evidence of P.W.2 corroborated by the circumstances arising out of the documents, the conclusion of the Tribunal in this regard has to be upheld. The age of the deceased was considered to be 44 years on the basis of Ex.A.3 post-mortem certificate and in the absence of any other evidence, the assessment of the age by medical expert can be a safe guide. The income of the deceased as claimed by the appellants was not acted upon by the Tribunal and when it took the probable income as Rs.15,000/- per annum, it was obviously guided by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 presuming even non-earning persons to be earning such an annual income. Any assessment by the Tribunal could not have been lesser and though the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 for the age of 44 years in contrast with the appropriate multiplier being 14 as p e r Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the marginal variation may not be interfered with at this distance of time. Similarly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport and funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas as per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra), the total compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium would have been only Rs.20,000/-. The difference of Rs.15,000/- in total need not be interfered with for another reason that the deceased left behind six dependents and the deduction towards the expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive would have been only one- fifth or one-fourth as per Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) and probably the claimants would have been entitled to much more compensation, had they challenged the impugned award. Under the circumstances, the appeal has no merits and has to fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-01-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298