THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3481 OF 1999 DATED: 30-10-2009 Between: APSRTC., Rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And Pedapalli Yella Reddi & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 06-09-2009, in O.P.No.78 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed a claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of the death of his wife, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27-02-1997. According to the claimants, on that day while himself and his wife-deceased were travelling in an auto bearing No.KRD-2491, an RTC bus bearing No.AP9Z-6531, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto near S.A.Sattar and Company Petrol Bunk on Proddatur-Mydukur road near Kotha Khaderabad, as a result of which the auto overturned and the claimant and his wife sustained multiple injuries and they were taken to the Government hospital, Proddatur. Subsequently, the deceased was shifted to Apollo hospital where she died on 04-03-1997. It is stated that the deceased was aged 22 years and was a graduate and her marriage was solemnized nine months prior to the accident. 4. The appellant-Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- paid as exgratia, an award was passed for Rs.3,05,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. 7. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver is not seriously disputed. The appellant is mainly questioning the quantum of compensation contending that the amounts awarded under various sub- heads are excessive. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the injured subsequently died while undergoing treatment and the claimant is the husband of the deceased, award of compensation towards pain and suffering is unsustainable and hence the said amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be deducted. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) a sum of Rs.5000/- can be awarded towards loss of consortium and hence, the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5000/-. As per the Second Schedule of the Act, the claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. 8. Regarding medical expenses, the claimant pleaded that he incurred a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical expenses, but filed medical bills-Ex.A1 showing a total expenditure of Rs.85,996/-. The Tribunal however awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses without any basis. Thus, confining the claim towards medical expenses, a round figure of Rs.86,000/- the excess amount of Rs.14,000/- granted by the Tribunal is to be deducted. 9. Regarding loss of dependency, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- and applying the multiplier ‘17’ suitable to the age of the deceased, who was aged 22 years, as per Second Schedule of the Act, the Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.2,55,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family was estimated at Rs.1,70,000/- and confined the same to Rs.1,50,000/- which was claimed by the claimant. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the deceased was only a housewife and was not an earning member and therefore the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- and estimating loss of dependency. However, the evidence on record would show that the deceased though was not regularly employed, as such, was however assisting her husband-claimant in his business by looking after his accounts, she being a graduate. Thus, the loss of income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- p.a., can be taken as the value of her services and assistance in looking after the household and also the business accounts of the claimant. Thus, viewed from any angle, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be unjust or unreasonable. In the circumstances, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,45,500/- rounded up to Rs.2,50,000/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 12% p.a. is also considered on the higher side and having regard to the market rate of interest and also the economic recession, it is considered just and proper to award the interest @ 9% from the date of the petition. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th October, 2009 Tsy