THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.MA.No. 3080 of 2008. & Cross Objections (SR) No. 25704 of 2007 JUDGEMENT: This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the A.P.S.R.T.C. against the Award dt. 3.1.2006 in O.P.No. 1468 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. as against the compensation claimed for Rs. 8,50,000/-. The claimants have also filed cross-objections on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre and the same is not awarded correctly assessing the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 6.4.2003 between 11 and 11.30 a.m. Gyanchand Vyas was proceeding from Osmania General Hospital towards Afzalgung for purchasing medicines and while he was cross the road, the RTC bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 8056 suddenly came with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed him and consequently the said Gyanchand Vyas sustained grievous injuries and when he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment, he was declared dead. The respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- on the ground that the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. by doing copper business. The Appellant herein filed a counter denying the rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by its driver and also denying the monthly income of the deceased. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal below framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the accident took place on 6.4.2003 at 11.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 8056 by its driver? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? iii) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs:A.1 to A.7were marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the respondent/appellant. The Tribunal below basing on the evidence of Pw.2 who is an eye-witness to the accident coupled with Exs: A.1 to A.5 (certified copies of FIR, Inquest Panchanama, Post-mortem report, MVI report and charge sheet) held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus in question and accordingly held the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. Basing on the age mentioned in Ex:A.1, certified copy of FIR and Ex:A.3, certified copy of Post- mortem report and since the appellant did not dispute the age of the deceased by giving any suggestion in the cross-examination of Pw.1, who is the wife of the deceased, the Tribunal concluded that the age of the deceased was 48 at the time of his death. The Tribunal basing on Exs:A.6 and A.7 the income tax returns and considering that the deceased was doing scrap business, estimated the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per month. Out of the said income, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and calculated the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs. 24,000/- p.a. As the age of the deceased was determined as 48 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs 3,12,000/-. Apart from the above amount, the Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and in all granted a sum of Rs. 3,39,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. as compensation, by the Award impugned in this appeal. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the APSRTC filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal having disbelieved the evidence with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, it ought not to have granted a compensation of Rs. 3,39,000/- and that the interest granted is also on higher side and therefore prayed to allow the appeal. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the cross- objectors/claimants contended that the Tribunal below without properly appreciating the documentary evidence particularly Exs:A.6 and A.7, the income-tax returns awarded a meagre compensation and therefore prayed to enhance the compensation. I have perused the entire evidence on record. The Tribunal below mainly basing on Exs:A.6 and A.7, the income tax returns and also taking into consideration that the deceased was doing scrap business, estimated the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- p.a. and deducted 1/3rd out of the said income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier 13 calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs. 3,12,000/-. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Though in Ex:A.6 the total taxable income of the deceased was shown as 75,450/- and the deceased paid a sum of Rs. 4090/- as income tax on the said income, the Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- only without assigning any reasons. Since, Exs:A.6 and A.7 are income tax returns and since they are submitted by the deceased to the Income Tax Department prior to his death and since the appellant did not dispute the genuineness of the said documents, the income of the deceased can be reasonably taken as 60,000/- p.a. Out of the said amount, 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and if 1/4th is deducted, the annual income of the deceased would at Rs. 45,000/- p.a. As the deceased was aged about 48 years, the appropriate multiplier is 13 (as applied by the Tribunal) and thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,85,000/-. Apart from the above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. In all the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. In the result, the cross-objections filed by the claimants is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,39,000 to 5,65,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, while the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The apportionment of compensation among the claimants is as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal below. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 24.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.MA.No. 3080 of 2008. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.03.2011.