THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.169 OF 2007 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.48031 OF 2007 Dt: 24-03-2011 BETWEEN: DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, JAMMALAMADUGU, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANTS AND OBULAM NARASIMHA REDDI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.169 OF 2007 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.48031 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants-APSRTC aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kapada in O.P.No.96 of 2003 and the Cross Objections are filed by the claimants. The respondent No.1 in the appeal is the husband and respondents 2 to 5 in the appeal are the daughters of the deceased-Obulam Hussainamma, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 20.9.2002 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-3809 belonging to the appellants. Respondent No.6 herein is the driver of the said bus. The deceased died leaving the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to 5 as his heirs. On 20.9.2002 at about 12.45 p.m. the deceased went to the outskirts of Nemmaladinne village for grazing cattle and the bus of the appellants driven by the 6th respondent-driver came in high speed, he lost control over the vehicle and dashed the deceased causing bleeding injuries. The deceased died while being shifted to the hospital. The respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 34 years as on the date of the accident and he was an agriculturist earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellants and the 6th respondent herein remained ex parte. While opposing the claim petition, the appellant No.3 filed its written statement. He denied the plea of the claimants that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. He also denied the age and avocation of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased by name Obulam Hussainamma died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.9.2002 at 12.45 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus No.AP-9Z-3809? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so to what amount? 3. To what relief? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the respondents - claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants. During the pendency of the claim petition, the first respondent-Obulam Naasimha Reddy, who was the husband of the deceased, died. The second claimant examined herself as P.W.1. In her evidence, she deposed to the incident, to the death of her mother in the accident, to her income and to the other facts pleaded in the petition. She was not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 was examined to speak to the manner of the accident. P.W.2 deposed that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling in the bus sitting in the front seat beside the driver. She further deposed that the driver was driving the bus speedily and dashed the deceased, who was tethering the cattle. The plea of the appellants-APSRTC was that the cattle and the deceased crossed the road suddenly, causing the accident. However, none was examined to speak to the said fact. The driver of the bus was prosecuted in a criminal case as can be seen from Ex.A4. The motor vehicles inspector has examined the vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to the mechanical defects. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellants-APSRTC and it accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5 % p.a., from the date of the petition till realization against appellants APSRTC jointly and severally. The respondents - claimants were granted Rs.4,500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.1,500/- towards advocate fee. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/APSRTC filed the present appeal, whereas the claimants filed the cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation. Sri.P.Vinayaka Swamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-APSRTC mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the proper multiplier. He further contended that the basis adopted for determining the compensation is also incorrect. The compensation awarded is on high side. Learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and the claimants are entitled for compensation of more than the actual claim of Rs.4,00,000/- and hence he prays for enhancement of compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was a milk vendor earning Rs.4,000/- per month. She also produced receipts of a milk collection centre under Exs.A6 to A9. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was a milk vendor earning Rs.4,000/- per month and produced receipts of a milk collection centre under Exs.A6 to A9, no one connected with the milk collection centre was examined to substantiate the claim hence the tribunal took Rs.2,000/- as domestic services income, which in my view is at a low pace and Rs.3,000/- would be an ideal amount towards domestic services. Hence, calculating the domestic services of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- p.a., the compensation deducted towards the wear and tear and health problems of the deceased comes to 1/4th i.e. Rs.9,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.27,000/- would be the annual income of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of ‘16’ for the age group of 34 years, it comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.27000 x 16). In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head loss of estate, which is a conventional amount and hence an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and also an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. In all it comes to Rs.4,54,500/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty four thousand and five hundred only). In so far as interest is concerned, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5 % is maintained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the cross-examinations are allowed as indicated above. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24-03-2011. TNB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO.169 OF 2007 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.48031 OF 2007 Dt: 24-03-2011.