THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.285 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the APSRTC against the Award was passed in O.P.No.324 of 1997, dated 21-03-2000 on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari District. The respondents 1 to 5 in the present appeal filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Md.Pentu Saheb. The first respondent is the wife and respondents 2 to 5 are his children. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,86,280/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation jointly and severally against the appellant and its driver respondent No.6. The deceased was working as Deputy Inspector of Survey attached to the Revenue Divisional Office, Amalapuram. On 26-01- 1996, the deceased went to Kakinada to the office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. After completing his work in the office, he along with his colleague Ch.V.Ramana visited the house of the Assistant Director. Later when both of them were waiting at a Bus Stop, the Bus bearing registration No.AEZ 2514 driven by the sixth respondent was stopped. When the deceased was boarding the bus, the driver without even observing whether all the passengers boarded the bus, drove the bus rashly and negligently, as a consequence of which the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada and he was declared dead. The claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined Chintalapalli Venkata Ramana, who was an eyewitness as P.W.2. The claimants also filed documents Exs.A1 to A6. The respondents resisted the claim on the ground that there was no negligence. The appellant examined its Driver as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. The Tribunal formulated issues, Whether the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its Driver and Whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and if so, to What amount? Based on the evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus AEZ 2514 by the sixth respondent – Driver and the deceased died on account of the same and awarded compensation of Rs.3,86,280/-. The present appeal is filed against the said Award. Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a feeble attempt to show that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the bus. The claimants examined P.W.2 to support the fact that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. P.W.2 was the eyewitness. P.W.2 was working as Deputy Surveyor in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kapileswaram. He deposed that on 26-01-1996, he went to Kakinada on official duty to the office of the Assistant Director. The deceased also came to that office and both of them went to the house of the Assistant Director, which was situate at Pratapnagar, Kakinada. Later both of them went to Pratapnagar bus stop to board a bus and that he boarded the RTC bus bearing No. AEZ 2514 and when the deceased was about to board, the Driver without verifying, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. The deceased fell on the road and received head injuries. P.W.2 with the help of rickshaw pullers shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kakinada in the same bus. In the cross-examination nothing could be elicited contrary to the examination in chief. The Driver of the RTC, who was examined as R.W.1, in his deposition admitted that the bus was stopped at Pratapnagar bridge stage. He stated that some passengers got down and then the Conductor gave signal to start the bus. He then moved the bus and at that time passengers inside the bus asked him to stop the bus s one passenger had fell down. He deposed that he lifted him and got him admitted in the Government Hospital. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not see the passenger while getting down from the bus. From the evidence of P.W.2 it is evident that the deceased was waiting in a bus stop as admitted by R.W.1 himself the bus was stopped to facilitate the passengers to board and elite from the bus. P.W.1 was an eyewitness. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. On the other hand even as per the evidence of R.W.1 he did not verify the passengers getting down from the bus and he simply moved the bus on the signal given by the conductor. The appellant did not examine the conductor to corroborate the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 himself further admitted that after vehicle moved to some distance, only after some passengers asked him to stop the vehicle he stopped the vehicle. From the facts and from the evidence of P.W.2 it is apparent that the Driver was rash and negligent and the deceased died only on account of such rash and negligence. I, therefore, hold that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this issue is correct. There is no dispute that the deceased was working as Deputy Inspector of Surveys. As per exhibits A5 and A6 he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.5,580/- per month. Based on the same the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd and the net contribution was arrived at Rs.3,720/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier ‘11’ by taking the age of the deceased as 52 years and although held that the claimants were entitled for Rs.4,91,040/-, it further deducted 1/4th on the ground that the amount was being paid in lump sum. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,68,280/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,86,280/- towards loss of dependency. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that although the Tribunal arrived at loss of dependency at Rs.4,91,040/-, it should not have further deducted 1/4th amount and in that view of the matter, the total amount of compensation of Rs.3,86,280/- was just and reasonable. Having regard to the fair submission made by the learned counsel, the quantum as awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 05th February, 2010. skmr