THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:1516 of 2006 BETWEEN: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Manging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. APPELLNAT AND 1. Banda Padma W/o. late Rama Rao, R/o. Nallabelly village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Claimant: Sri P. Rajani Counsel for Respondents: Sri A. Ravinder The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in O.P.No.1214 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of the death of one Banda Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), in an accident that occurred on 29.05.2003 at about 6.30 a.m. It was stated that on the date of accident when the deceased was getting down the RTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z/8428 near Ambedkar Statue at Narsampet Village, the driver moved the bus rash and negligently, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous close head injury, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the said injury. It was the case of the claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged about 45 years and earning Rs.5000/- p.m. by doing motor mechanic work and agriculture. Hence, the above O.P. 3. The respondent-corporation filed written statement opposing the averments made in the petition including the manner in which the accident took place and the age and income of the deceased, and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z/8428 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-corporation, RW.1 was examined. 5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal held on Issue No.1 that Exs.A.1-copy of F.I.R., A.2-copy of inquest panchanama, and A.4- charge sheet coupled with the evidence of PW.2-eyewitness, would go to show that the driver drove the offending bus without observing the deceased is getting down from the bus from the open door, and the same amounts to rash and negligence on the part of the driver, and accordingly answered the issue in favour of the claimants. On issue No.2 the Tribunal held that as per Exs.A.3 and A.4 the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. Though the claimants relied on Ex.A.7-the certificate issued by the Village Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Nallabelli Village showing that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- p.m., by working as motor mechanic and running a motor driving shop, but they did not choose to adduce any satisfactory evidence in that regard. Having regard to the age of the deceased and his occupation, the Tribunal took the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and Rs.36,000/- p.a., and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, arrived the contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.24,000/- p.a. As per the schedule appended to the Act applied the multiplier ‘13’ and awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.14,100/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,38,100/- towards compensation. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation and learned counsel for the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3000/- and the compensation granted is excessive and exorbitant and that the multiplier ‘13’ is also not proper. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 9. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the accident occurred. The F.I.R., registered by the S.H.O., P.S. Narsampet, under Ex.A.1 basing on the complaint lodged by the claimant No.1 on 3.06.2003 at 9.00 a.m., categorically discloses the registration number of the offending bus and the name of its driver. Further PW.2, who is an eyewitness to the incident, in his evidence categorically deposed that while he was waiting in his Auto rickshaw, near Ambedkar Statue at Narsampet bus stop for passengers, the driver of the RTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner resulting in head injury to the deceased. Immediately he along with others shifted the victim in his Auto rickshaw to the Government Civil Hospital, Narsampet for treatment and thereafter to Jaya Hospitals, and informed to the family members of the deceased over phone. The charge sheet under Ex.A.4 laid by the Police also certifies the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Having regard to the same, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Coming to the earnings of the deceased, though the claimants relied on Ex.A.7-the certificate issued by the Village Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Nallabelli Village, showing that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- p.m., by working as motor mechanic and running a motor driving shop, they did not choose to adduce any satisfactory evidence in that regard. Having regard to the age of the deceased his occupation and family back ground, the Tribunal rightly took the earnings of the deceased Rs.3000/- p.m. Coming to the quantum of compensation, column No.15 of Ex.A.2-inquest panchanama, describes the actual occurrence of accident, and the age of the deceased. The Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, also certified the age of the deceased as 45 years, and opined that the cause of death is head injury associated with septicemia. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier for the age of 45 years, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1] would be ‘14’. If multiplier ‘14’ is applied, the claimants will be entitled to get more compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence I see no error in the award of compensation by the Tribunal. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129