HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1013 of 2005 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: D. Vijayalakshmi and three others .. Appellants And 1. The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director 2. The APSRTC rep. by its Depot Manager .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the order dated 02.02.2005 in O.P.No.1957 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge(F.T.C.), City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. The claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that they are the wife, the minor daughter and the parents of the deceased – D. Vaidyanath. On 01.09.2002, at about 12.45 P.M., near Imliban Bus Station, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, while the deceased was driving an Auto bearing No.AP 12T 6276, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 9Z 1764 belonging to the Ranigunj Depot, dashed against the auto from behind, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries to the head, legs, ribs, etc., and immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where he died on the same day at about 02.30 P.M. while undergoing treatment. The Police, Afzalgung Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.562 of 2002 under Section 337 IPC and later altered the Section of law to Section 304 (a) IPC. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1764. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter denying the manner of the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation and the petitioners failed to supply the copies of the FIR and charge sheet. The claim made by the claimants is excessive. Hence, they prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 01.09.2002 at about 12.45 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1764? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? In order to substantiate their case, the 1st petitioner got herself examined as PW1 besides examining one more witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondents, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced. From a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and granted an amount of Rs.4,24,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenditure instead of deducting 1/4th of his income and the multiplier i.e. 17 applied by the Tribunal in calculating the compensation is not appropriate, and prays to enhance the compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondents has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with, and prays to dismiss the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP9Z 1764 of Ranigunj Depot and that the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,094/- which is rounded off at Rs.3,000/- and that the age of the deceased is 25 years at the time of the accident as is clear evident from Ex.A4 – postmortem certificate. However, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure and in applying appropriate multiplier while quantifying the compensation. As the number of dependent family members is 4, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of the income of the deceased as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another[1]. Further, when the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier that is to be applied as per the judgment cited supra, is “18”. If 1/4th is deducted from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, it arrives at Rs.2,250/- (Rs.3000/- - Rs.750/-). Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.27,000/-. If the appropriate multiplier is applied, the compensation arrives at Rs.27,000/- x 18 = Rs.4,86,000/-. In addition thereto, the 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and all the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation is quantified at Rs.5,06,000/-, which is restricted to the claim made by the claimants i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be paid to claimant Nos.1 and 2, the wife and the minor daughter of the deceased respectively. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% p.a. is hereby enhanced to 7% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization. With the above modification of the impugned Award dated 02.02.2005, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj [1] 2009(6) SCC 121