IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.268 OF 2007 BETWEEN The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND Karanganti Rajitha and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. P. RAJANI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. V. RAMA CHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the second respondent – APSRTC in O.P.No.904 of 2005 against the award dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The husband of the first claimant and father of the second claimant, who was aged about 25 years and working as washerman, suffered an accident on 11.08.2005 when he along with one Merugu Eliesh were proceeding on TVS Moped bearing No. AP 23 C 2800, the bus belonging to the appellant bearing No. AP 11 Z 601 dashed against the vehicle of the deceased resulting in the death of both the riders of TVS Moped. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- under various heads. 3. Before the tribunal below P.W.1 the widow - claimant No.1 and P.W.2 - an eyewitness, were examined. The claimants also marked FIR, Charge Sheet, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report as Exs.A1 to A4 respectively whereas on behalf of the appellant the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. The tribunal below on consideration of evidence found that though the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be treated as an eyewitness and though P.W.1, admittedly, was not an eyewitness to the accident but keeping in view the FIR, Charge Sheet, evidence of R.W.1 and non-examination of other persons by the appellant established that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, the said issue was held in favour of the claimants. To the extent of compensation claimed, the tribunal below found that the deceased was aged 25 years and though there is no evidence of his earning said to be Rs.5,000/- per month, his income was assessed at Rs.2,000/- at the minimum and after deducting 1/3rd and applying multiplier 18, the dependency was arrived at Rs.2,88,000/-. The tribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and awarded aggregate amount of Rs.3,02,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal below has not taken into consideration the aspect of contributory negligence in spite of evidence of R.W.1 that the offending bus was traveling at a slow speed and the TVS Moped on which the deceased was traveling came and hit the bus. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the finding of negligence against the appellant is not justified nor the quantum of compensation is justified inasmuch there is no evidence of earnings of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order on the ground that nobody is examined on behalf of the appellant to establish that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and secondly, the quantum of compensation is based upon the minimum earnings of the deceased and therefore, warrants no interference. 6. The finding of negligence reached against the appellant is sought to be appealed against on the ground that evidence of R.W.1 establishes that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is, however, to be noted that the said evidence clearly speaks of the bus traveling allegedly at a low speed but R.W.1 also submits that the deceased and the another person came on TVS Moped from a small lane and at that time dashed against the bus. The fact that TVS Moped emerged from a small lane on to the main road and dashed against the bus, as contended by R.W.1, is, however, not supported by either the evidence of conductor or any passenger, except the self-serving testimony of R.W.1 no other person supports the said theory, therefore, the tribunal below rightly rejected the said contention and found that the offending bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 7. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants were unable to establish the earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, the tribunal below has taken the minimum of earnings i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier correctly relevant to the age of the deceased, has granted the compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- towards loss of estate. The multiplier applied is in conformity even with the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. The award under appeal, therefore, does not suffer from any error and warrants no interference. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 19, 2010 DSK [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121