HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.4271 of 2008 ORDER: Respondents, who are the parents, brothers and sister of P. Vijay Prakash (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed O.P. No.2130 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum –C Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 26-04-2005, while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle from Kukatpally to Banjara Hills, when he reached Moosapet Bus stop, a bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 1012, belong to the appellants – Corporation, hit the deceased from behind in a rash and negligent manner, causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Appellants filed counter, denying the averments made in the claim petition. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident resulting in death of P.Vijay Prakash occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1012? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief ? On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants. 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 11 Z 1012 belonging to the appellants-Corporation, awarded compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- to the claimants with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the present appeal is by the appellants-Corporation. 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 motorcycle himself is responsible for the accident. It is also contended that he Tribunal went wrong in applying the multiplier 18 by taking the age of the deceased, who is bachelor, and as per the decision in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the age of the mother would be taken for determining multiplier in case of death of a bachelor, and that the respondents have failed to prove the income of the deceased and that he compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. 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? 5. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the driver of the bus involved in the accident, that when he moved the bus from the Moospet bus stop, a steering auto driver tried to overtake the bus, and in the meanwhile, the rider of the motorcycle tried to overtake the auto and hit another steering auto and lost balance and fell down on the left side of the road, cannot be accepted. PW-2, who is a friend of deceased, is an eyewitness to the accident and he lodged the FIR. PW-2 categorically stated in the FIR and in his evidence that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Ex.A-3 charge sheet, clearly goes to show that driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind. Therefore, no negligence, much less, contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased. 6. Coming to the compensation aspect, the tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased instead of the age of his mother, as he was a bachelor, in applying the multiplier. The age of the mother of the deceased is 48 years and the appropriate multiplier is 13. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondents stated that the deceased was an electrician and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and they also filed Ex.A-6 experience certificate issued by employer of the deceased. The Tribunal disbelieved Ex.A-6 and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per Ex.A-2 certified copy of the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 27 years and he can ear more than Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, I take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.42,000/- per annum. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1), half of the income of the deceased be deducted towards personal living expenses and the appropriate multiplier for the age of the mother of the deceased is ‘13’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.21,000/- x 13 = Rs.2,73,000/-. 7. The Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. I grant Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.4,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. 8. So, the respondents / claimants are entitled to Rs.2,73,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.4,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses; totalling to Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal, payable by the appellants within interest at 6% 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 respondents / claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. October 22, 2010. KTL [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 23104