HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 268 and 1553 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) Both the Appeals arise out of the Judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.568 of 2001, dated 07-09-2004, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,97,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. 2. C.M.A.No.268 of 2005 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.7,97,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. C.M.A.No.1553 of 2005 has been filed by the respondents before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.7,97,000/-. 3. Since both the Appeals arise out of the same order, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common Judgment. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first claimant is the father and the second claimant is the mother of one Himabindhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died in a motor accident. The deceased was the only daughter to the claimants. On 05-12-2000 at about 9-50 AM, the deceased and one Ms. K. Vishala were proceeding on the scooty bearing No.AP 11 H 966 of Vishala towards Vasavi Engineering College. Ms. Vishala was driving the scooty and the deceased was the pillion rider. When they reached officers mess of Artillery centre, Ibrahimbagh, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6542 of Mehidipatnam Bus Depot, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came behind the scooty and dashed the handle of the scooty. However, Vishala controlled the scooty. But again the bus dashed the scooty from its behind due to which the scooty driver Vishala fell on the left side and the deceased fell on the right side of the road. Even after dashing the scooty, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus and the bus rear wheels ran over the head of the deceased and she died on the spot. Even then the bus was not stopped and on hearing screaming of the passengers only the bus driver stopped the bus at a long distance and ran away from the place of incident. On the report given by one K. Vikas, a fourth year Engineering Student of Vasavi Engineering College, the police registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The claimants filed the O.P. inter alia contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and claiming a total compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. Their specific case is that the deceased was aged 21 years by the date of accident and was studying final year engineering course in Visavi Engineering College, Hyderabad, and also studying computer course in APTECH Computer Education and was preparing simultaneously for GRE and TOEFL to secure admission for higher studies in abroad. 5. The respondents filed a common written statement denying the averments of the claimants. The respondents denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Their specific case is that the deceased had good physique and heavy weight and that the driver of Scooty while negotiating the speed breaker had driven the same at high speed, lost control and consequently the scooty fell down. It is also their case that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive, exorbitant and out of proportion. 6. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW-1 and one K. Vikas was examined as PW-2. None were examined and no documents were filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month and by applying multiplier ‘13’ awarded compensation at Rs.7,80,000/- towards loss of dependency and in addition to that the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, in total Rs.7,97,000/- was awarded to the claimants. 8. Smt. P. Vimaladevi, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued that the deceased was the only daughter to the claimants and that due to the untimely sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants were put to great shock and that they are still not in a position to recover from the shock. It is also her contention that the claimants, in order to provide best education to their daughter, were making all efforts and that the first claimant had also taken voluntary retirement to secure funds to send the deceased abroad for further studies. It is also her contention that the Software Engineers are earning minimum Rs.40,000/- per month and that the deceased was in final year in B.E. and that she had bright prospects and had she not died in the accident, she would have secured a decent job in any software company and earned at least Rs.40,000/- per month. It is also her submission that the deceased was about to complete computer course in APTECH Computer Education and obtained passport and was planning to go to USA for further studies. It is vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects of the deceased and wrongly taken the notional income of the deceased without considering the evidence on record and ground realities. It is also her submission that the evidence of PW-2 and the documents filed by the claimants clinchingly establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooty and that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. It is also his submission that the deceased was only a student and she was not earning anything and therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month and that the compensation awarded is excessive and has to be reduced. 10. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver? and 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation or whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side? POINT NO.1: 11. The specific case of the claimants is that on the date of accident the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the scooty bearing No.AP 11 H 966 belonging to one Vishala, who was driving the said scooty. Their further case is that the while they were proceeding on the scooty from Mehidipatnam bus stop towards Vasavi Engineering College and when they reached officers mess of Artillery centre, Ibrahimbagh, the bus belonging to the respondents came from behind the scooty being driven by its driver in high speed and dashed handle of the scooty and then again dashed the scooty and consequently the deceased fell down and the rear wheels of the bus ran over the deceased. Thus the specific case of the claimants is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 12. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He is not the eyewitness to the accident. However Exs.A-1 to A-12 have been marked in his evidence in support of his case. The claimants have also examined PW-2 who claims to have witnessed the accident. Admittedly none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. 13. PW-2, one K. Vikas was a student of IVth year engineering (Civil) in Vasavi Engineering College on the date of accident. According to him, he boarded the offending bus at Nanal Nagar bus stop at about 9-30 AM to go to his college. His further case is that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at high speed and rashly since the time he boarded the bus. His evidence further shows that there was traffic jam at Langar House and at about 9-50 AM, the bus reached the officers mess of Artillery centre, Ibrahimbagh and it was being driven at high speed. His evidence further shows that the deceased and Ms.Vishala were proceeding on the scooty and they were slowly negotiating the speed breaker along with the left side of the road and the bus driver did not slow down the bus and the bus hit the handle of the scooty. According to him though Vishala lost her balance, but however controlled the scooty and was proceeding further. It is also his case that the bus again hit the scooty from its behind and Vishala fell on the left side and the deceased fell on the right side of the road and the bus ran over the deceased and the head of the deceased was crushed. It is also his case that the driver did not stop the bus and that only after the passengers shouted at the driver, he stopped the bus. According to PW-2, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 14. PW-2 was cross-examined at length and it is elicited in the cross-examination that the deceased was senior to him in his college and that he was hanging at the foot board at the time of accident. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that the accident occurred after the bus negotiated the speed breaker. 15. Admittedly PW.2 lodged a report to the police basing upon which FIR was issued. A reading of the evidence on record gives an impression that the presence of PW.2 at the place of accident cannot be doubted and there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony and he appears to be a natural witness. Merely because PW-2 is from the same college in which the deceased was studying, his evidence cannot be discarded. Ex.A-1 is the C.C. of the complaint. Ex.A-2 is the C.C. of FIR. The evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.A-2. Ex.A-3 is the C.C. of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 is the C.C. of inquest report Ex.A-5 is the C.C. of Postmortem examination report. Ex.A-6 is the C.C. of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, which shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Exs.A-7 to A-12 are the news items published in various Telugu and English Daily newspapers with regard to the accident. The news published in newspaper cannot be treated as evidence. However, the evidence of PW-2 and the contents of Ex.A-2 clinchingly establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It appears that though there was speed breaker, the bus driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at the first instance the bus hit the handle of the scooty, but subsequently the bus dashed against the scooty from its behind. It shows that the bus driver did not observe the scooty and did not apply breaks when the bus hit the handle of the scooty. The evidence on record further reveals that even after the bus ran over the deceased, the driver did not stop the bus till passengers raised alarm. Thus the circumstances clinchingly establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. POINT NO.2: 16. According to PW-1, the father of the deceased, he was working in Syndicate Bank and that his wife was enrolled as an Advocate, but not practicing and that both of them were trying to provide best education to their daughter. His evidence further shows that the deceased was studying final year engineering and was also studying computer course in APTECH Computer Education and simultaneously preparing for GRE and TOEFL for securing admission for higher studies in abroad and that the deceased had also obtained passport. It is also his case that just two days before the accident, the deceased organized and celebrated his 50th birthday in a grand manner and invited all his friends and relatives. The documents filed by the claimants establish that the deceased was studying final year in Vasavi Engineering College, Hyderabad though she had initially taken admission in Hindustan College of Engineering in Tamilnadu, and that she was studying APTECH Computer education. 17. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the first claimant had taken voluntary retirement foregoing 10 years of service and other monetary benefits to provide higher education to his daughter. She also submitted that the claimants have spent huge amount for providing higher education to their daughter. 18. There cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased was studying final year engineering in Vasavi Engineering college and she was also studying computer Course in APTECH Computer Education and that she had good prospects of securing a job of computer engineer. This Court in a recent Judgment in C.M.A.No.1154 and 1487 of 2004, dated 09-09-09, while dealing with a case of engineering students, who died in a motor accident, held that in view of the present salaries being earned by the computer engineers there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further observed as follows: “51. In view of the present salaries, being earned by the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-/- per month. It has to be seen that nowadays IVth class employees are also getting minimum Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month depending upon their service. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales fixed to the technical persons, we are of the view that the minimum salary of a technical person, who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or electronics or mechanical, can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the graduates in engineering i.e., B.Tech., cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month, otherwise it amounts to neglecting the ground reality. Similarly those who have completed M.Tech., MCA., MBA., the income of such persons can be fixed a little higher i.e., at Rs.15,000/- per month. This will take care of the additional income which they would have earned in course of their service. 52. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the minimum income of B.E. graduate can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month.” 19. In view of above referred recent decision of this Court, we are inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased was unmarried, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. [1], 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the loss of contribution to the dependants comes to Rs.Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum (Rs.6,000/- x 12) and after applying the relevant multiplier ‘15’ as per SARLA VERMA’s case (1 supra), the total compensation comes to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.72,000/- x 15). The claimants are also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges etc. Thus in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,90,000/-. 20. It is needless to mention that the claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date of O.P. till the date of realization. 21. In view of the above discussion, M.A.C.M.A.No.268 of 2005 is allowed in part and M.A.C.M.A.No.1553 of 2005 is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 17-09-2009 YCR [1] 2009 (3) SUPREME 487