IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT Dated this the first day of October, 2010. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 3038 of 2002 Between: The APSRTC represented by itsGeneral Manager (now re- designated as Managing Director), Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …Appellant/First Respondent And Smt. Ch. Lalitha and others …Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 3038 of 2002 Judgment: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the first respondent in O.P.No. 624 of 1999 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts are as follows: The petitioners - wife and daughter of the deceased, Satyanarayana, who died in a motor accident, filed the present petition claiming compensation of Rs.7.00 Lakhs. As per the case of the petitioners, on 11—7—1998 at about 3.30 PM, the deceased and his son, Phani Shankar (deceased in another claim petition), were proceeding on Scooter bearing No.AP-9D-1045 towards Hayatnagar and when they reached High Court colony bus stop, APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-9Z-9196 came in opposite direction from Hyderabad in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter. On account of the accident, both of them succumbed to the injuries. A case in Cr.No.171 of 1998 was registered at P.S., Hayatnagar. The deceased was working as a clerk in State Bank of Hyderabad drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,742-95. Apart from salary he was drawing other incentives. Accordingly the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.7.00 Lakhs. 3. The contesting respondent – APSRTC filed its counter denying the allegations in the petition. It is further contended that the bus was proceeding to Hayatnagar and when it reached High Court colony bus-stop, where it stopped for enabling the passengers to get down and after some passengers boarded, it started moving slowly. At that time, the scooterist while overtaking the bus came into contact with the bus and thus the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the scooterist. The compensation claimed is high. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the court below for trial. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-17 were marked and on behalf of the respondents RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex B-1 was marked. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.7.00 Lakhs, holding that as per Ex A-6 – pay slip the deceased was getting salary of Rs.10,742-95 per month; as the deceased was 47 years old, multiplier ‘9.34’ would be applicable; that after deducting 1/3 of the salary towards personal expenses, if the multiplier ‘9.34’ is applied, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.7,47,237.00. 7. In fact, as per the present legal position, the petitioners would be entitled for more than the compensation of Rs.7.00 Lakhs claimed. However, even by then also they were held to be entitled to Rs.7,47,237.00 towards loss of dependency itself. There are absolutely no grounds to reduce the above quantum of compensation. 8. Apart from that nothing is added towards enhancement of future earnings, as he was below 50 years. In case appropriate sum is added towards enhancement of future earnings, the petitioners would be entitled for more compensation than Rs.7.00 Lakhs. Thus, absolutely there are no grounds to reduce the quantum of compensation. 9. However, in view of the recent legal position, the rate of interest which is awarded at 9% can be reduced to 7.5% per annum. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. The judgment of the court below shall stand unaltered in all other respects. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated: 01-10-2010 *BVS