HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.690 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award, dated 04.01.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.15 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts that lead to the filing of the case are that, on 15-06-2003 at 4.10 P.M, when one Gajjahalli Raghavendra Reddy (herein referred to as ‘deceased’) was travelling with one Boya Laxmaiah, as the road was not good, they stopped the motorcycle to give way to one APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 10Z 3508 near the land of K.V. Venkanna Goud. But the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which, the deceased along with his motorcycle were dragged to a distance of 15 ft., and he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Isvi Police have registered a case in Crime No. 17 of 2003. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed in part the said M.V.O.P awarding compensation of Rs.2,57,000/- against a claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed this appeal. 4. In support of their claim, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 which happened to be the copy of First Information Report, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Certificate, M.V. Inspector’s Report, Charge Sheet, Pattadar Passbook and bunch of receipts of 4 members. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 5. While the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent contested the matter denying all the averments made in the claim petition. He further alleged that both the drivers of the lorry and the motorcycle involved in the said accident did not possess valid driving licence and hence sought for dismissing the appeal. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues one as to the culpability in causing the accident and the entitlement of the just compensation by the claimants. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 who is none other than the wife of the deceased and also the evidence of PW.2-eye witness to the accident and who was with the deceased on the fateful day and also the Ex.A-1 copy of the F.I.R, Ex.A-2 Copy of the Inquest Report, Ex.A-4 Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, observed that the respondent corporation is vicariously liable for the act done by its driver and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.2,57,000/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- 7. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondent corporation. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident and the deceased died in the said accident. Considering the evidence of the claimants, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus and the same needs no interference by this Court. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of compensation granted by the Tribunal, as on date of the accident, the deceased was aged 36 years and the deceased was a landlord having 30 acres of land and he was also having 120 acres of dry land and he was earning around Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. Since, there is no positive evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, however considering the age of the deceased at 36 years, his income can be safely taken at Rs.3,500/- per month which annually comes to Rs.42,000/-. Since the claimants are five in number, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], 1/4th has to be deducted i.e. Rs.10,500/- instead of 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal, thus loss of income comes to Rs.31,500/- (Rs.42,000 –10,500/-). The appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’ and if applied the loss of contribution by the deceased to his family comes to Rs.4,72,500/-. Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- under conventional heads. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the claimants are granted total compensation of Rs.4,92,500/- with interest rate at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:31.03.2011 SP/KK HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.690 of 2005 March 31, 2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129