IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.187 of 2007 Between: APSRTC, represented by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Chintapalli Nagalakshmi and 4 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 12-10-2006 in MVOP.No.63 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry. The factual background for the appeal is that when Chinthapalli Thrimurthulu was attending to the repairs of a moped in his shed on the main road at Narasapurapupeta centre on 22- 10-2002, APSRTC bus AP-10-Z-7010, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against a tractor and trailer resulting in the trailer crushing the deceased to death by sandwiching him between the trailer and a tree near the shed. The wife, two minor children and parents of Thrimurthulu became destitutes and sought for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- originally, which was later enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/- on amendment as ordered in I.A.No.797 of 2005. While the driver of the bus remained ex parte, the Corporation denied all the allegations of the claimants and further denied any negligence on the part of the bus driver. The negligence was attempted to be attributed to the driver of the tractor-trailer and the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor- trailer were contended to be necessary parties. The Corporation, therefore, desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the responsibility for the accident is with the bus driver due to his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the eye-witness as PW.2, who was independent and who was corroborated by the contents of the First Information Report and charge sheet-Exs.A.1 and A.3 in this regard and the evidence of the conductor of the bus as RW.1 was not relied upon, as there was no complaint against the driver of the tractor-trailer by the bus driver or the conductor and as there was non- examination of the driver himself about the manner in which the accident had occurred. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month treating him as skilled labourer though he was shown to be running a shed as a mechanic and deducted 1/3rd of such income towards probable personal expenses of the deceased. The loss of dependency was assessed on the balance of income by applying a multiplier 17 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for the age of 23 years of the deceased and apart from the said sum of Rs.3,40,000/-, the Tribunal also considered it fit to award Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- each to the minor children towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- each to the parents towards loss of love and affection. The compensation was, however, restricted to Rs.3,50,000/- as claimed by the claimants and interest was awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Further directions were given about apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal contending that it was the driver of tractor-trailer, who lost control over his vehicle, went towards the left side margin, hit a tree and dashed the mechanic shed killing the deceased. The non- examination of any witness cited in the First Information Report and the charge sheet should also have been taken into account and the claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus. The Tribunal also erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- and applying a multiplier of 17 and even the permission to enhance the claim by way of amendment was incorrect. The Corporation, therefore, desired the impugned award to be reversed. Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel representing Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The points for consideration in this appeal are the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The non-examination of the bus driver was not attributed to any explicable reason by the Corporation and the evidence of the conductor is no denial of PW.2 being the eye-witness for the accident. The evidence of the conductor itself showed that the bus driver overtook the tractor and trailer at which time a Tata Sumo was coming in the opposite direction at great speed due to which the bus driver took the bus to the left side. The driver of the tractor and trailer was stated by RW.1 to have hit the bus at that time and then to have hit a tree and the scooter mechanic shed. It was thus evident from the evidence of the conductor himself that it was the sudden taking of the bus to the left side that resulted in the tractor-trailer unavoidably hitting the bus and then a tree and the shed. Had the bus driver been taking reasonable care in driving the bus, the accident would not have thus occurred and the claims of PW.2 about the rashness and negligence in driving the bus were corroborated by the earliest version in the First Information Report as also the findings by the police in their charge sheet and there was no complaint against the tractor trailer by any body connected with the bus. If on the basis of such evidence, the Tribunal has concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the same cannot be considered unreasonable or worth interference in appeal. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased is not in dispute and their dependence on the deceased for their sustenance is also not in dispute. The ownership of the bus and employment of the offending driver with the corporation make it vicariously liable, to compensate the claimants, along with the driver of the bus and in assessing the quantum of compensation payable, though the occupation of the deceased was probablised to be a scooter mechanic running a shed, by the very accident itself, the Tribunal took into account only the wages of skilled labourers for assessing his income. Instead of deducting 1/4th towards probable expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, as directed by Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the dependents being 5 in number, the Tribunal had in fact deducted 1/3rd of the income towards such probable expenses. The multiplier was adopted as per law. The amounts awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium were in tune with the accepted conventions and therefore, the claimants would have been entitled to a much higher compensation had the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased been 1/4th in accordance with law and not 1/3rd as done by the Tribunal. The compensation assessed was further restricted to that claimed and the amount of compensation, therefore, does not appear susceptible to any interference, and even the interest awarded at 7.5% p.a. was not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest charged or paid by the Scheduled banks. Therefore, the award is not susceptible to any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298