HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3786 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.1380 of 2001 vide judgment dated 03-06-2002 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, APSRTC preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are husband and children respectively of the deceased Kummari Susheela, are claimants. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 22-06-2001 while the deceased was proceeding on a scooter as pillion rider, near Presidency Club, L.B. Nagar, bus bearing No.AP9 – Z – 4730 belonging to the APSRTC and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, hit the scooter from backside, as a result, deceased fell down from the scooter and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The deceased was earning Rs.80/- a day by working as a construction labourer and also earning Rs.1,000/- per month by working as maid servant in various houses in the morning and evening hours. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. APSRTC filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1) Whether the accident in question has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registered No.AP 9Z 4730 belonging to the respondent Corporation ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so, to what amount from the respondent Corporation/ 3) To what relief? 6. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the APSRTC, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,08,720/- to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.3,00,000/- fixing the liability on both the respondents for payment of compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved of the same, APSRTC preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 9. Considering the circumstances of the case, where the deceased was aged 35 years and was said to be working as a construction labourer and maid servant as well, income of Rs.1,500/- taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive and in fact the same is some what on lower side and the multiplier ‘15 (14.81)’ also cannot be said to be excessive. 10. Further, the contention of the claimants that services rendered by the deceased towards household work also have to be taken into consideration for computing loss of dependency merits consideration and that the Tribunal has taken multiplier ‘15’ for computing loss of dependency on the basis of the decision in BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD ARIF[1], whereas according to the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA V. DTC[2], appropriate multiplier is ‘16.’ In the circumstances, it is not at all a fit case for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Learned standing counsel appearing for the APSRTC contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal may be reduced from 9% per annum to 6%. 12. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% and it is accordingly reduced. 13. With the above modification in the rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 19, 2010. PV [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121