IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.740 of 2004 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by the Managing Director, APSRTC, Musirabad, Hyderabad and another ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Mallepoola Rajavva and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.740 of 2004 ORDER: Respondents, who are mother, wife and children of Mallepoola Kasha Gound (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’), filed O.P.No.444 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 02.03.1998 while the deceased was proceeding on a scooter, being driven by his friend, as a pillion rider and when reached Gasbula Rice Mill, Sircilla road, Kamareddy, a bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5051, belonging to the appellants-Corporation, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter causing death of the deceased and injuries to his friend. Respondents claimed that the deceased was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month by doing agriculture and toddy business. First appellant filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and second appellant filed memo adopting the said counter. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-9Z-5051 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, R.W.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5051 belonging to the appellants-Corporation, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the present appeal is by the respondents- Corporation before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any compensation inasmuch as the rider of the scooter himself is responsible for the accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- and the rate of interest granted is also excessive. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal rightly allowed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and, if not, to what amount they are entitled and from whom? 4. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of bus involved in the accident, that he was driving the bus very slowly and cautiously and, when the bus reached rice mill, one scooter came in opposite direction and got down from the road margin, tried to take the scooter again to the road and, in that process, slipped and fell down along with the pillion rider and that the bus did not touch the scooter, cannot be accepted. P.W.2, the rider of the scooter, who is an independent witness categorically deposed about the manner of accident. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.6- charge sheet clearly goes to show that R.W.1 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter in opposite direction. Therefore, no negligence much less contributory negligence can be attributed to P.W.2. 5. Coming to the compensation aspect, the Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- after deducting one-third towards personal living expenses and applied the multiplier 15.83 relying on BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1]. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the income taken by the Tribunal is on higher side. I find some force in the said contention. In my considered opinion, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/-, which annually comes to Rs.36,000/-. Since there are five dependants, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], only one- fourth has to be deducted towards personal living expenses and the appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased is ‘16’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.36,000/- x 1/4 x 16 = Rs.4,32,000/-. 6. The Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 2nd respondent; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. I do not wish to interfere with the same. 7. So, the respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased i.e. the 2nd respondent + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses; totaling to Rs.4,59,500/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.4,60,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7% per annum. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.4,60,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the appellants with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The amount reduced in this appeal shall be given effect equally to the respondent/claimant Nos.2 to 5. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 26th August 2010 CVRK [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104