IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.1732 of 2010 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M. Arunakumari and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.1732 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 04.01.2010 passed in O.P.No.1830 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short – ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents/claimants, who are wife and children of M.Krishna Mohan (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the deceased’), filed claim petition in O.P.No.1830 of 2008 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident alleging that on 27.06.2008 at about 6.00 AM at Kothapet while the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle, the driver of a bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-3252, belonging to the appellant, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the said motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. It is their case that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years and drawing a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month by working as Administrative Officer in State Bank of Hyderabad, Staff College, Hyderabad. 3. Appellants filed counter affidavit in the claim petition contending inter alia that the petitioners have to prove age and income of the deceased, that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of crime vehicle as such they are not liable to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is also excessive. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. 1. Whether the deceased died in the accident on 27.06.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3252? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, only R.W.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, through the order impugned, awarded Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that the quantum of compensation is high, that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.33,800/- per month i.e. by adding 30% to the net salary of the deceased; and that the multiplier ‘15’ adopted by it is erroneous and in fact the same shall not exceed ‘7.68’. He also contended that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is excessive. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents/ claimants vehemently opposed the said contention on the ground that the Tribunal though held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.35,15,148/- inasmuch as they have restricted their claim to Rs.30,00,000/-, awarded only Rs.30,00,000/- and stated that there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order, while answering issue No.2 which pertains to determination of compensation, the Tribunal rightly followed the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] for fixing the multiplier ‘13’ as the deceased was aged 50 years and for adding 30 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 50 years. Further, the Tribunal, upon considering the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 coupled with Ex.A.6 salary certificate, rightly took the income of the deceased as Rs.26,000/- per month, added 30% thereto towards future prospects, and deducted 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.22,533/- per month and which works out to Rs.2,70,396/- per annum. The Tribunal was also right in holding that, if the multiplier ‘13’ is adopted, the loss of earnings work out to Rs.35,15,148/- and as the petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.30,00,000/-, the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- towards loss of earnings for the death of the deceased. Thus, we see no irregularity in the impugned order. 7. However, the request of the appellant with regard to the rate of interest is considered and the interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. 8. Apportionment and withdrawals ordered by the Tribunal are not appropriate. Hence, it is directed that all the three (3) petitioners shall be entitled to Rs.10 lakhs each. Out of these amounts, each petitioner shall be entitled to draw Rs.2 lakhs each as and when deposited. Remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and the petitioners shall be entitled to draw the amounts after five (5) years. Till then they can draw interest on those amounts. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 27th September 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104