THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 2857 of 2006. JUDGEMENT: The A.P.S.R.T.C. filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dt. 6.6.2006 in O.P.No. 718 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda on the ground that the Award is unjust and inequitable. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Buchi Ramulu was working as a Security Guard in APSRTC, Mahaboobabad and was earning a sum of Rs. 7,462/- p.m. and that on 3.2.2004 the deceased was performing his duties at RTC bus station, Mahaboobabad and at about 8.30 p.m. he was at the main gate of the RTC bus depot and at that time, the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2951 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the main gate and consequently the deceased who was at the main gate struck-up between the gate pillar and the RTC bus and sustained multiple injuries and he died while undergoing treatment at the Government Area Hospital, Mahaboobabad at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day. For the death of the deceased, the respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- basing on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,462/- as a Security Guard. The Appellant herein resisted the claim of the respondents by filing a counter. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal below framed the following issues for consideration: i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2951 resulting the death of the deceased B.Buchi Ramulu? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? iii) To what relief? During the trial, Pws 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs:A.1 to A.7 were marked. No evidence at all was adduced on behalf of the APSRTC. However, Ex:X.1 was marked by the Court. The Tribunal below basing on the evidence of Pw.2, who an eye witness to the accident coupled with Ex:A.1, certified copy of FIR, Ex:A.2, certified copy of inquest report, Ex:A.3, certified copy of post-mortem report, Ex:A.4, certified copy of MVI report and Ex:A.5, certified copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No. 29 of 2004 filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2951 and accordingly answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence of Pw.3 and also taking into consideration the salary certificate marked as Ex:X.1 came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 7,482/- by working as Security Guard in the RTC and basing on the identity card Ex:A.6, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 39 years and 9 months as on the date of his death and after deducting 1/3rd out of his monthly income towards his personal expenses and after applying the multiplier 16, calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs. 9,57,696/-. In addition to the above amount, the Tribunal below also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 9,67,196/- with interest @ 7½ % p.a. by the impugned Award. Aggrieved by the Award, the APSRTC filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal below erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,482/- and the Tribunal also erred in applying the multiplier 16 since the deceased was 39 years 9 months old as on the date of his death and therefore the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 40 and ought to have applied the appropriate multiplier 12.79 for the purpose of calculating the total dependency. It is also further contended that the Tribunal below failed to see that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the respondents as additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment and that the said amount has to be deducted from the compensation granted. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. I have perused the entire evidence on record. The Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence of Pw.2, who is an eye-witness to the accident and also taking consideration, the certified copies of Ex:A.1 to A.5 (FIR, inquest report, Post-mortem report, MVI report and the charge sheet) held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The reasoning given by the Tribunal below while coming to the conclusion on issue No.1 is quite convincing and the said finding need not be disturbed. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 12.79 by taking the age of the deceased, as 40 cannot be sustained. As per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.[1], the appropriate multiplier to be applied to the age of the deceased is 16 and the Tribunal rightly adopted the same while calculating the loss of dependency. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd out of the monthly income of the deceased and rightly calculated the total compensation to be awarded to the respondent. However, in view of the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest, the interest granted by the Tribunal at @ 7 ½ % is reduced to 6% p.a. With the modification in the rate of interest as indicated above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 24.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 2857 of 2006. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.03.2011. [1] 2009 (6) Scale 129