THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 832 OF 2007 Date of order: 2.8.2010 Between: Aremreddigari Sahadeva Reddy and others …Appellants and The APSRTC represented by its Managing Director and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 832 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in MVOP No. 105 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII-Addl. District Judge, Madanapalle. The appellants and other claimants 1 and 3 who are respondents 2 and 3 herein are the children of the deceased Mangamma who died in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 4.3.2002 at about 7.45 P.M. while the deceased was walking on the left side of the road, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-8548 was coming from Tirupathi to Madanapalle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which she sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of their mother in the motor accident. On behalf of the claimants, the claimants 1 and 3 were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and eye-witness as P.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A4 viz., First Information Report, post mortem certificate, inquest report and charge sheet were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus owned by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation based on the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A4 and the oral evidence of P.W.3 and decided the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. On issue No.2 the Tribunal found that according to the claimants, the age of deceased was 58 years, whereas it was mentioned as 62 years in post mortem certificate and 60 years in inquest report. Though the claimants had claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per month, in the absence of any evidence in support thereof, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, thus aggregating to Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 7.5 P.A.. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum compensation amount without taking into consideration the income of the deceased and without applying the proper multiplier. The learned counsel also states that the age of the deceased mentioned in the post mortem certificate and the inquest report is only an approximate estimation of age and it cannot be treated as accurate. The learned counsel for the respondent-APSRTC, on the contrary, contends that there is no evidence to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per month as claimed by the claimants and at best only notional income as prescribed under Schedule-II of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act can be assessed. Similarly to the extent of the age of the deceased, the learned counsel states that the claimants have failed to furnish any proof with regard to age of the deceased and therefore the age as mentioned in the charge sheet viz., 62 years has to be adopted. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and in the absence of evidence on the part of the claimants regarding the age as well as income of the deceased, it would not be safe to accept the evidence of the claimants. Instead, in the matter of this nature, it would be appropriate to adopt the Schedule-II of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there is no evidence of earning of the deceased, it has to be presumed that she was earning a minimum of Rs.15,000/- per year and after deducting one third thereof towards her personal expenses, her dependency can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per year. Since three different figures of age are mentioned by the parties, as referred to above and in the absence of clear evidence relating thereto, the age of deceased can be taken as 60 years as mentioned in the inquest report-Ex.A3 for the purpose of applying an appropriate multiplier. As per the Schedule-II, for the age group of 55 years to 60 years the appropriate multiplier being ‘8’, the total contribution of the deceased can be worked out at Rs.80,000/-. To the said amount, the conventional amounts i.e., Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate are added. Thus it is just and proper to award a total compensation of Rs.84,500/- with interest @ 6% P.A. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2, is accordingly modified. The appellants also claimed that the claimant No.3, one of their brothers, had stated before the Tribunal that the entire compensation be paid to their sister i.e., the claimant No.1. The appellants are aggrieved by that part as well and they contend that there is no authorization for the claimant No.1 to appropriate the share of compensation which falls to the share of the appellants herein. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellants on instructions has fled a memo to the following effect. “It is submitted that the appellants herein instructed that they are ready and willing to give 50% of the compensation awarded and further the enhancement if any ordered by this Hon’ble Court to the 2nd respondent herein including the share of 3rd respondent herein. Hence, this Hon’ble Court may pass the appropriate orders.” Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.84,500/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @ 6% P.A. payable by the respondent-APSRTC. No costs. In terms of the aforesaid memo, the said compensation amount shall be distributed among the claimants in the following proportion, (1) The claimant No.1-respondent No.2 is entitled to her share and that of the share of claimant No.3-respondent No.3 and 50% of the share of the appellants herein in the total compensation amount; (2) The appellants are entitled to rest of 50% of their share. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 2.8.2010 KR