IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated the 28th day of October, 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy M.A.C.M.A.No. 4 of 2006 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad. ..Appellant And Guggulothu Lakshmi and others ..Respondents PSR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No. 4 of 2006 Judgment This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad aggrieved by the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1009 of 2001 dated:19th day of August, 2005 by the learned Chairman-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are that on 15.1.2001 at 11.55 AM, when the deceased Eeru @ Hero was going on Scooter bearing Registration No.AP-16-N-2429 on the left of the road and when he reached near Jakkampudi Adda road, APSRTC bus bearing No.AP- 9Z-6663 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed the scooter of the deceased. Consequently the deceased fell down. Immediately he was shifted to UGH, where first aid was given and then the injured was shifted to Charitashri Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment where he succumbed to the injuries on 19.1.2001. The accident was subject matter of Crime No.11 of 2001 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Vijayawada. The deceased was an agricultural cooli earning Rs.50-00 per day. In all the claimants, who are mother, father and minor sister of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.1,94,000-00. 3. The case against the first respondent, driver was dismissed by the lower tribunal for non-payment of process. The second respondent filed its counter denying the petition averments. It pleaded that the accident happened due to the rash negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased himself. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court. i) Whether the deceased Guggulothu Eeru @ Hero died in the motor accident on 15.1.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1,driver of APSRTC Bus No.AP-9Z-6663? ii) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident? iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed? If so, from whom? iv) To what relief? 5. In support of their case, the first petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Exs A-1 - the first information report; Ex A-2 - Intimation to Police; Ex A-3 - Postmortem report; Ex A-4 - MVI Report and Ex A-5 to A-44 - Medical bills were marked. RW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the material placed before it, the lower tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1.84 Lakhs. Aggrieved by the same respondent No.2 filed this appeal. 8. The deceased in this case is un-married, as such the age of the mother, which was around 42 years was taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation. If the multiplier “11” is taken into consideration and applied on the basis of the approximate age, there is no need of modifying the same. The income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.50-00 per day, which also cannot be said to be inappropriate. As such after deducting 1/3rd of the earnings for personal use, Rs.1000-00 can to be taken as contribution of the deceased to the family and basing on the same the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.1.32 Lakhs towards loss of dependency. As the deceased died after four days the petitioners might have spent some amount for treatment and the deceased might have suffered pain during the above period. Apart from that some amount has also to be awarded towards loss of love and affection etc. As the amount of compensation has been derived on the basis of hypothetical age and income, in the absence of authentic evidence, in all, a total sum of Rs.1.50 Lakhs would be appropriate. Thus, the compensation granted by the court below can be said to be on higher side, particularly in the cases of this nature, where the deceased was an unmarried person, there is no authentic material about the age and income of the deceased and of the mother of the deceased. In this view of the matter, the appeal is to be partly allowed, reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.1.84,008-00 to Rs.1,50,000-00. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that even the rate of interest awarded @ 7.5% is also on higher side. Considering the quantum of compensation awarded and the nature of case, I hold that it is not a case for reducing the rate of interest. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed part, as indicated above. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:28—10—2010. *BVS