IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1769 OF 2004 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ..... Appellant AND Andhegaliwada Shankaramma & 4 others ..... Respondents AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3622 OF 2004 Between: Andhegaliwada Shankaramma & 3 others ..... Appellants AND 1. Badri Laxmaiah 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1769 & 3622 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.356 of 2003, dated 30.04.2004, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, the appellant/second respondent i.e., APSRTC filed C.M.A.No.1769 of 2004 and the respondents/claimants filed C.M.A.No.3622 of 2004. 2. In C.M.A.No.1769 of 2004, the appellant herein, which is the APSRTC, is the second respondent and the respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Adhegaliwada Lachaiah, are the claimants in O.P.No.356 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The parties in O.P.No.356 of 2003 are same in the CM.A.No.3622 of 2004. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.No.356 of 2003 before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts are as follows: On 22.06.2002, when the deceased went to NTPC to his friend’s house on his scooter and after completing his work, when he was returning home on the same scooter at about 8.00 p.m. near the Labour Gate No.II on Rajiv Rahadari road, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 3412, driven by the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, on account of which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was aged about 40 years by the date of accident and was working as a Timberman in SCC Limited and was earning Rs.11,174/-. 5. Respondent No.1 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition. Respondent No.2 also filed a counter denying the averments in the petition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 10 Z 3412 by its driver. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. 3. To what relief.” 7. To substantiate the case of the claimants, the first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, herself got examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2, the Personal Officer in 5-Incline, Godavarikhani, P.W.3, the eye witness, P.W.4, a colleague of the deceased, and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1, who is the first respondent was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. On the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to be 52 years, applied the multiplier of 10, taken his income at Rs.7,000/- per month, deducted certain amount towards personal expenditure and awarded that compensation. Aggrieved of the same, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred. 9. In both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The second respondent-corporation contends that the quantum of compensation is disproportionately high, whereas the claimants contend that the quantum of compensation is low. 10. Now, the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate? 11. On the basis of the post-mortem examination, the claimants have claimed the age of the deceased to be around 42 years and the Tribunal has rightly not accepted the same. As per service records of the deceased, when he joined the service in the year 1980, he was aged about 30 years and the accident took place in the year 2002. Thus, on the basis of service records, the age of the deceased was fixed at 52 years. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect cannot be assailed. Thus, as the deceased was aged 52 years, multiplier 10 can be applied. What is recorded is not the authentic age but approximate age. The income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.7,000/- per month. His job was one that was paid when there was work and not otherwise. As such, fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month also cannot be found fault with. 12. As per the latest law laid down by the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], atleast 1/4th has to be added towards the income of the deceased towards possibility of future enhancement of the wages and when the dependents are more than four, instead of 1/3rd, only 1/4th has to be deducted towards total income. In these cases, if 1/4th is added to Rs.7,000/- towards enhancement of future wages and 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenditure, the quantum of Rs.7,000/- remains as it is. In case multiplier 10 is applied, the total compensation comes to Rs.8,40,000/-. Though the claimants should be entitled for certain amounts on the other heads, as substantial amount is granted on the basis of the approximate age of the deceased, there is no need of any further amounts to be granted under further heads. Though in case of persons aged more than 50 years, nothing need be added towards future enhancement in earnings on approximate age is being taken and 1/4th is being added in this case. 13. Considering the above circumstances, I hold that the claimants should be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- and the rate of interest on the entire compensation of R.8,40,000/- shall be at 6% per annum through out. 14. The entire enhanced amount shall be payable to claimants 2 to 4 in equal proportions. Each one of them shall be entitled to withdraw 25% of that enhanced compensation as and when deposited and the balance after three (3) years thereafter by keeping the same in fixed deposits. 15. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1769 of 2004 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.3622 of 2004 is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 21st October, 2010. KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1769 & 3622 OF 2004 21st October, 2010. KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298