IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.2786 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.35282 OF 2010 Between in M.A.C.M.A No.2786 of 2009: The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep.by its Managing Director And another. ...PETITIONERS A N D Smt Loka Uma Devi and others. …RESPONDENTS Between in CROSS OBJECTIONS(SR) NO. 35282 of 2010: Loka Umadevi and others. …CROSS OBJECTORS AND The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.and another. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.2786 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.35282 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: A.P.S.R.T.C. filed this appeal questioning findings of the lower Tribunal on rash and negligent driving of the bus and also quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants. The claimants in turn filed cross-objections claiming more compensation than awarded by the lower Tribunal. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, by award dated 30.04.2009 in O.P.No.512 of 2007 awarded compensation of Rs.7,74,424/- to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.15,00,000/- for death of the deceased Loka Surender Reddy, who was working as Village Secretary of Pachchalanadakuda Village. It is a case of R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-10/Z-1910 dashing scooter bearing No.AEU-6600 of the deceased, resulting in his death ultimately. P.W.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence. On the other hand, R.W.1 driver of the R.T.C. bus was also examined. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that scooter of the deceased dashed the bus on extreme right side and that it is not a case of head–on collusion between the two vehicles and that therefore, as per evidence of R.W.1 the deceased was at fault and not the bus driver. But, P.W.2 who is the eye witness even as per Ex.A.2 charge sheet states that driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed scooter of the deceased. Simply because, P.W.2 was sitting in the third seat and there were some passengers sitting in front two seats, evidence of P.W.2 cannot be brushed aside on that ground alone. The lower Tribunal rightly assessed evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.1 and came to right conclusion to the affect that R.W.1 was responsible for this accident and not the deceased. The evidence on record does not indicate that the deceased contributed any percentage of negligence for this accident. 3. The lower Tribunal accepted salary certificate filed by the claimants as Ex.A.6, which is Last Pay Certificate of the deceased issued by Panchayat Secretary Grade-I of the Panchayat, in which the deceased was working. The deceased Loka Surender Reddy is described as Junior Assistant. It shows that the deceased was drawing Gross salary of Rs.8179/- and net salary of Rs.7869/- per month. It is contended by the cross-objectors’ counsel that gross salary has to be taken into consideration and not the net salary. 4. For the above salary of the deceased, there is no incidence of income tax. As per Ex.A.6, the deceased was paying Professional Tax of Rs.80/- per month. It has to be deducted from his gross salary. Therefore, salary for the purpose of computation comes to Rs.8,099/-. The lower Tribunal selected ‘12’ as multiplier for the age of 42 years of the deceased. But in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS V DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] of the Supreme Court, the multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 is ‘14’. It has to be adopted in this case. If, calculation is made on the above basis, then it will be Rs.8,099/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.13,60,632/-. 1/3rd thereof has to be deducted therefrom towards personal expenditure of the deceased, which comes to Rs.4,53,544/-. The pecuniary dependency of the claimants on the deceased comes to Rs.9,07,088/-. Since the deceased was a Government salaried employee, an amount of 30% has to be added towards future prospects and it comes to Rs.2,72,126/-. Thus total pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.11,79,214/-. The lower Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2000/- towards transport charges. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.11,98,214/-. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed; and the Cross Objections are partly allowed enhancing compensation amount from Rs.7,74,424/- to Rs.11,98,214/-. No costs. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J NOVEMBER 23, 2010 YVL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298