THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.943 OF 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as “the Corporation”) assailing the order and decree dated 11-07-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Khammam in O.P.No.642 of 1998 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein( legal representatives of deceased Narasimha Rao) under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,05,000/- for the death of deceased-Narasimha Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The first respondent is the wife, respondent 2 and 3 are minor children and respondent 4 and 5 are parents of the deceased- Narasimha Rao. According to the claim of the respondents in the O.P that the deceased was working as a Constable in Khammam under the control of Superintendent of Police, Khammam and was aged about 42 years. At the time of accident, he was driver of S.I Ravindranath of Rural P.S. Khammam. On 4-09-1997 at about 2.40 P.M after noon when the deceased along with another person returning from Warangal X roads to Khammam on a Bullet Motor cycle bearing No.APQ 8733, one RTC bus bearing No.AP9 Z 2612 of Kodad Depot driven by its driver/1st respondent in the O.P hit the Bullet vehicle, due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The Khamam Rural P.S registered a case in Cr.No.153 of 1997 under Section 304-A and 338 IPC. At the time of death, the deceased-Narasimha Rao was drawing a salary of Rs.3,144/- per month and as such an amount of Rs.9,05,000/- was claimed towards compensation. 3. The driver of the RTC Bus/sixth respondent herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd appellant resisted the claim petition by filing a counter-affidavit refuting all the allegations. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Vehicle (R-1)? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. Heard both sides. 6. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked and on behalf of the appellants/respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in as much as the deceased was also responsible for the accident, the Tribunal ought to have applied the theory of contributory negligence and the Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier “15” instead it ought to have applied the multiplier “14”. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier “15” and the theory of contributory negligence has no application in the case on hand in as much as it is evident from the record that the accident occurred purely because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. 9. Now, the points for consideration are: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 6th respondent herein alone or whether the theory of contributory negligence has to be applied? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified? Point No.1: 10. As Could be seen from Ex.A-1 certified copy of First Information Report, it shows that one Laxmaiah who was pillion rider of the Bullet vehicle and who took the deceased to hosital in an auto lodged complaint with the police. The recitals of complaint go to show that on 14-09-1997 at 2.40 P.M he along with deceased were returning from Warangal X roads to Khammam on a Bullet Motor cycle bearing No.APQ 8733, one RTC bus bearing No.AP9 Z 2612 of Kodad Depot driven by the driver/1st respondent in the O.P hit the Bullet vehicle, due to which the deceased Narasimha Rao died on the way to the hospital. Further according to Ex.A-3, copy of the report of Motor Vehicles Inspector, the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the bus involved in the accident. So, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be found fault with and the theory of contributory negligence has no application in the instant case. The point is answered in favour of the claimants/respondents. POINT NO.2: 11. The Tribunal while taking into consideration of Ex.A-5 salary certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam for the month of August,1997, showing his salary as Rs.2,748/-; Ex.A-6 driving licence of the deceased Ch.Narasimha Rao showing his date of birth as 20-04-1956; Ex.A-7 certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, which confirms the date of birth of deceased as that of Ex.A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,29,750/- besides an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of conjugal happiness. 12. The salary drawn by the deceased is Rs.2,748/- at the time of accident which comes to Rs.32,976/- per annum leaving 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family would have been Rs.21,984/- p.a. However, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION([1]) the appropriate multiplier which can be applied to the deceased is “14”. But the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier “15”. Therefore, the loss of his future earnings would come to Rs.21,984/- x 14 =3,07,776/-. So, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.3,07,776/- + 20,000/- = 3,27,776/-( rounded off to Rs.3,27,800/-). 13. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,49,800/- to Rs.3,27,800/-. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Therefore shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 5TH AUGUST, 2010 TSNR [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104