THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3689 OF 2002 DATED:04-12-2009 Between: The APSRTC Rep., by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And M.Padmini & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 14-08-2002, in O.P.No.143 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased- M.Madan Mohan, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04-05-2000. 1st claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the deceased. According to the claimants, while the deceased was crossing the road at Salarjung bridge on 04- 05-2000, a bus bearing No.AP 9Z 1986, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. It is further pleaded that the deceased was working as Kamati in Osmania General hospital and earning a monthly salary of Rs.3359/-, and was aged 35 years by the date of the accident and still having 23 years of service. 4. The appellant-Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the respondents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Accordingly, award was passed on 14-08-2002 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplying factor of 14.81, applicable to the age of the deceased as per the guidelines set out in BHAGAWAN DAS v. MOHAMMED ARIF, instead of ‘16’, which resulted in awarding higher compensation towards loss of dependency. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal failed to deduct the amount of income tax and professional tax from out of the salary while computing the loss of dependency. He would further contend that the interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 12% is on the higher side. 9. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 35 years by the date of the death and that he was working as Kamati in Osmania General hospital and was drawing basic pay of Rs.3370/- and D.A. of Rs.276/-, totalling Rs.3646/- per month as per the salary certificate-Ex.A5. Though the suitable multiplier as per the guidelines in Bhagawan Das case (cited supra) for the age of 35 years is 14.81, the Tribunal having regard to the facts and circumstances, applied the multiplier ‘16’ as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). However, since the annual income of the deceased exceeded Rs.40,000/-, the II Schedule of the Act may not be strictly applicable, but as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, the suitable multiplier for the age of 35 years is ‘16’ only. Even otherwise, having regard to the fact that the difference between the multiplying factor 14.81 and 16 is not much and also having regard to the fact that the deceased has two young minor daughters, it is considered neither just nor proper to interfere with the multiplier ‘16’ applied by the Tribunal. 10. Regarding the deductions towards income tax and professional tax, there is absolutely nothing to show that the deceased was paying any income tax and having regard to the low income he was earning, there may not be any deduction towards income tax and the deduction towards professional tax might be minimal. 11. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the amount of Rs.4,66,688/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency can be upheld. Similarly, the amounts of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of estate; Rs.6000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.6000/- to the daughters towards love and affection, are also considered to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal, however, awarded interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of the petition. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Having regard to the reduced market rate of interest and bank rate and in the backdrop of the economic recession, it is considered that the interest @ 9% p.a. would be just and reasonable. 12. In the result, subject to the above modification in the rate of interest, which is now granted at 9% p.a., the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th December, 2009 Tsy