THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2905 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. against the decree and order, dated 28.03.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in O.P.No.179/1995. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are that the deceased Balugram Vishwa Mohan Rao, a clerk cum typist in Manjira Grameena Bank, was traveling from Mydukur to Hyderabad on 17.10.1994 in a RTC bus bearing No.AP.9Z.7028 as a passenger. At about 3.30 a.m., on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the bus hit a standing lorry, on account of that the deceased sustained injuries, after shifting to Osmania Hospital he died. The deceased was earning Rs.4,466.30ps per month. His pay revision was due. First petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. They claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. Respondent R.T.C. filed a counter denying all the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP.9Z.7028? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondent and if so, to what amount? 3. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the above quantum and rate of interest granted at 9% per annum, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed this appeal. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the quantum awarded is on higher side? 7. It is a case where the deceased was a regular employee of a bank, aged thirty years as per record, but in proof of his age, no S.S.C. certificate or Service Register was filed. Basing on the age of his wife, which was 25 years and the first child of the deceased being aged 4 years, the age of the deceased can be taken as 35 years and appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. There is no dispute with regard to the salary of the deceased being Rs.4,466.30ps. Though on the date of death, the salary of the deceased was only Rs.4,466/-, towards possibility of enhancement of future earnings, another 25% can be added to his income. In that event, the salary of the deceased can be taken as Rs.5,600/- per month. At that rate, the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation than what is awarded by the Court below, i.e. 5600 minus 1/3rd = Rs.3722 X12 X17 = Rs.7,59,000/- and odd. As such, I see no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Court below. As the petitioners have got less amount than what they have to get on account of claim being less, I do not intend to reduce the rate of interest also. 8. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 23rd June 2010, Rns