THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 283 of 2004 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS SR NO. 29606 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: APSRTC is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in MVOP NO. 573 of 1998 dated 14.6.2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.02.1998 at about 11.30 hrs the deceased – Sathyaprakasha Rao was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. AP-15-B-8545 towards Koratla and when he reached near Ramalayam Temple , the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AEZ- 2635 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The SHO, Koratla Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 35 of 1998 under Section 338 IPC. It is stated that the deceased was working as accountant in a Brandy Shop earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The claimants accordingly laid a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3. The claim was resisted by the respondent-APSRTC by filing counter denying the income of the deceased. It was contended that the accident has not taken place on account of the negligence of its driver and the police falsely implicated the driver of the bus and he is not liable to pay any compensation. It also contended that all the allegations averred in the petition and manner of the accident as narrated in the petition are false. 4. On behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW-1 was examined and Ex. B-1 was marked. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP-9-Z- 2635 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? And If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. 2635 by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the circumstances, the salary of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and his annual income comes to Rs. 24,000/- (2000 x 12 = 24,000) and out of the said amount 1/3rd amount was deducted towards his personal expenses and calculated the net income per annum at Rs. 16,000/- and it applied the eligible multiplier of 17 and then calculated the total compensation at Rs. 2,72,000/- ( 16,000 x17= 2,72,000). Apart from that the Tribunal granted funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- and consortium of Rs. 5,000/- totaling Rs. 2,79,000/- (2,72,000+5,000+2,000). The Tribunal directed the respondents 1 and 2 therein to pay the said compensation jointly and severally with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said compensation, APSRTC preferred this appeal and the claimants preferred Cross-objections (sr) 29606 of 2004, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the deceased was aged 32 years by then and was an employee of Wine Shop, Jagtial and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month and on this count PW-2 is the owner of the wine shop was also examined who was categorically deposed that he has been running wine shop at Jagtial and the deceased was an employee of his shop and he used to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the deceased and Ex. A-7 is the salary certificate issued by him. He also contended that inspite of Ex. A-7 salary certificate issued by the owner of the wine shop, the Tribunal erred in fixing the salary at Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, seeks enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. 9. We find some force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking into account the income of the deceased. Claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. Considering the totality of circumstances and also the salary certificate Ex. A-7 issued by the owner, we deem it appropriate to fix the salary of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and his annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- (3,000 x 12) and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses the net income comes to Rs. 24,000/- (36,000-12,000) and applying multiplier of 17 the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000/- (24,000x17). In addition to that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Now the total compensation comes to Rs.4,28,000/- (4,08,000 + 10,000 + 10,000). Since the total compensation claimed by the claimants is only Rs. 3,00,000/-, the amount of compensation awarded is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed and the Cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed in part restricting the compensation as claimed by the claimants at Rs. 3,00,000/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is reduced to 7.5%. The appellant-APSRTC is liable to pay the said compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 KA