HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 Date: April 28, 2010 M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 Between: 1. K. Gurumurthy and another. … Appellants/Petitioners And 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Azampura, Hyderabad and 3 others. (The O.P. against respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed, as such they are not necessary parties). … Respondents/Petitioners/ Respondents. * * * M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 Between: 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus bhavan, Azampura, Hyderabad and another. … Appellants/ Respondents 1 & 2 And 1. K. Guru Murthy and 3 others. … Respondents/Petitioners * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are filed by the claimants and APSRTC as well. The claimants are praying for enhancement of compensation and the A.P.S.R.T.C. is challenging the quantum of compensation. Hence, both these M.A.C.M.As. are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Sri R. Prasad, learned counsel representing appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 would maintain that when there is no dispute that the net salary is Rs.13,750/- and the deceased being bachelor if half to be deducted, it would come to Rs.6,875/- and the correct multiplier is 9. If it is to be calculated per year, it would come to Rs.82,500/- and accordingly if Rs.82,500/- to be multiplied by 9, it would come to Rs.7,42,500/-. The counsel also would maintain that loss of estate Rs.5,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- to be granted and thus the appellants are entitled to Rs.7,52,500/- with interest. The counsel also made certain submissions relating to the quantum of interest. 3. On the contrary, the Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. representing respondents 1, 2 and 3 in M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 and the appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 would maintain that the Tribunal below came to a wrong conclusion on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the learned Standing Counsel also would maintain that appreciation of evidence is not on proper lines and, hence, the said findings are to be disturbed and the M.A.C.M.A. filed by the claimants to be dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. filed by the Corporation to be allowed. 4. Heard the counsel. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in these M.A.C.M.As. (1) Whether the claim made by the appellants in M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 to be allowed as prayed for or the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal to be modified or enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be confirmed or liable to be set aside? (3) Whether M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. to be allowed negativing even that portion of the compensation which had been granted by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case? (4) Whether the interest granted can be said to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case? (5) What is the interest to be granted in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that some enhancement to be made? (6) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled? 6. Points 1 to 5: These points are being discussed together for the purpose of convenience. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.3063 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter in short referred to as “Tribunal” for the purpose of convenience). 7. The claimants made a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the purpose of convenience) by he parents of the deceased Praveen Kumar who died in an accident and the said claim was made for Rs.10.00 lakhs. The Tribunal, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the O.P. to be partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,93,400/- against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No doubt, certain further directions also had been given. Aggrieved by the same, both the claimants and A.P.S.R.T.C. as well filed independent M.A.C.M.As. as already aforesaid. 8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased, who was working as a lecturer, was returning to Hyderabad from the college in the college bus bearing No.AP 11 Defendant 8888, belonging to respondent No.3, insured with the 4th respondent on 29.10.2005. The bus belonging to respondents 1 and 2, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the bus in the opposite direction, as a result of which Praveen Kumar and others sustained injuries and Praveen Kumar died while undergoing treatment at Yashoda Hospital on 02.11.2005. It is also stated that the deceased was aged 24 years and was working as a lecturer in the college of 3rd respondent. 9. Respondents 1 and 2, the owners of the A.P.S.R.T.C, contended that there was no negligence on the pat of the driver. The third respondent also filed counter denying the allegations. Respondent No.4 denied the allegations. 10. The following issues were settled before the Tribunal: (1) Whether K. Praveen Kumar died on 29.10.2005 in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. AP 11 D 8888? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, against whom? (3) To what relief? 11. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and also Exs.A-1 to A-9 had been appreciated and the Tribunal recorded a finding that due to the negligent driving of the driver only the accident occurred and accordingly answered issue No.1 and further while answering issues 2 and 3 further findings had been recorded and after referring to the principles in Bhagawandas v. Mohd. Arif (1987 ACJ 1052) case came to the conclusion that the O.P. to be partly allowed as already specified supra. 12. Inasmuch as the findings had been recorded on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and also Ex.A-1 certified copy of the FIR in crime No.111 of 2005, Ex.A-2 certified copy of complaint, Ex.A-3 certified copy of inquest, Ex.A-4 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A-5 certified copy of panchanama, Ex.A-6 certified copy of post-mortem examination report, Ex.A-7 certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A-8 salary certificate and Ex.A-9 pay slip, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded relating to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question need no disturbance and, hence, the said findings are hereby confirmed. However, while appreciating the multiplier to be applied and the deduction to be made, the approach adopted by the Tribunal being not in accordance with law, the same to be modified. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in Sarla Verma VS. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. 14. It is not in controversy that the deceased was working as a lecturer and it was recorded that he was drawing a salary of Rs.14,105/- per month as per the salary certificate and the net income being worked out at Rs.13,750/- and he being bachelor, half of the amount to be taken i.e., Rs.6,875/- and if calculated the same would come to Rs.82,500/- and the correct multiplier to be applied being 9, Rs.82,500-00 x 9, and this quantum will come to Rs.7,42,500/-. Apart from this aspect, for the loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- each to be granted and thus the total quantum of compensation to be granted would come to Rs.7,52,500/-. 15. Accordingly, the award made by the Tribunal below is hereby modified and instead of Rs.4,93,400/- the same is enhanced to Rs.7,52,500/- and the interest granted at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization, however, is hereby confirmed. 16. For the original amount granted by the Tribunal, the interest at 7.5% is hereby confirmed and for the enhanced amount granted by this Court, an interest of 6% is hereby granted. Accordingly, the award is modified. 17. Point No.6: In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. No.1232 of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the M.A.C.M.A. No.3685 of 2009 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: April 28, 2010. BSB [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)