THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2153 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C.- respondents 2 and 3 in O.P.No.453 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram against the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2002. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The above O.P. was filed by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.7,13,500/- claiming that the first petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the son of Gundapu Venkatarao, who died in an accident on 12.12.2000 near Mamidipalli road junction, Salur in Srikakulam district. According to the petitioners, on the date of accident while the deceased was boarding R.T.C.bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 8407, the driver of the bus, first respondent in the O.P.drove it without noticing properly about the boarding passengers. On account of that the deceased fell down and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over him, when the driver took the bus in reverse, the bus again ran over him killing him on the spot. 4. A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter contending that the driver of the bus gave statement before the R.T.C. stating that the deceased was in intoxicated condition and dashed against a woman going on the road, she pushed him towards the slowly moving bus, on account of that he fell under the bus. But there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 8407 by R.1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.5,70,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. The first question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the accident has taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus or as to whether there was any accident at all? 7. As seen from the counter filed by A.P.S.R.T.C., it is clear that there was an accident on account of the offending bus. The fact that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus also can be culled out from the counter itself as the counter is that the driver R.1 in the O.P. gave statement stating that the deceased was drunk and he dashed against a woman and that woman pushed him aside on account of that he fell under the slowly moving bus. It is impossible to accept such contention. The driver, who was supposed to look forward would not have noticed any such thing that has happened on the rear side of the bus and it is impossible to believe any such story also. Thus, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus also cannot be disputed. 8. Now, the question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a line inspector in B.S.N.L. Telephone Department. P.W.2 spoke about the same and P.W.2 also spoke that as per the entries in the service register the date of birth of the deceased was 06.10.1948. Thus, he was aged 52 years. P.W.1 claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,700/- a month about which P.W.2 also stated that it was Rs.6,690/-. Ex.A6 is the salary certificate. Thus, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.84,000/- per annum. If an amount of Rs.28,000/- is deducted from out of that towards personal expenses of the deceased and multiplier ‘10’ is applied, his actual contribution comes to Rs.5,60,000/-. For that on account of latest legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in "SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION"[1] and other decisions, certain amount has to be added towards enhancement of future earnings and even if 25% is added, the contribution comes to Rs.70,000/- per annum. In which event, if multiplier ‘10’ is applied, the petitioners are entitled to get more compensation than the amount awarded by the Court below. Thus, there are absolutely no grounds to reduce the quantum of compensation. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% p.a. to 7.5% per annum. 9. With the above modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104