HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2005 Date:21.12.2010 Between: N. Angel Hilda Veronica and 2 others. ….Appellants. And: The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others. …..Respondents. pHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objections arose out of the Award dated 03.08.2005 passed in O.P.No.399 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur whereby and where under the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and granted compensation of Rs.11,06,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit. The respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants in O.P. No.399 of 2001. They filed the O.P under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of N.M. Manohar Bhaktha Raj in a road accident occurred on 28.6.2000. The claimant No.1 is widow and claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of N.M. Manohar Bhaktha Raj. He along with Thammineni Pedda Venkataramaiah boarded A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP10 Z7227 at Dharmaram bus station to go to Anantapur. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and as a result the bus dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 02 9889 coming from opposite direction. N.M. Manohar Bhaktha Raj sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was shifted to General Hospital, Anantapur for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No.49 of 2000 was registered against the driver of the bus by the Station House Officer, Pothukunta Police Station. N.M. Manohar Bhaktha Raj was a Principal in D.I.E.T college and was drawing salary of Rs.14,500/- per month. He had seven years of service as on the date of his death. His pay was to be revised from Rs.14,500/- to Rs.19,500/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to the maintenance of the family. The claimants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the Corporation. The Corporation filed a counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The Corporation denied the rash and negligent driving of the drier of the bus. It also denied the earnings of the deceased. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.6.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. AP 02- 9889 and caused the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle is having valid driving license by the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioner proved the age, income, and occupation of the deceased? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 5. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, they examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the Corporation, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 7227 and the Corporation being its owner is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.11,06,000/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. Accordingly, allowed the O.P in part, by award dated 03.08.2005. The Corporation has filed M.A.C.M.A No.3202 of 2005 and whereas the claimants filed Cross Objections. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the quantum of amount fixed by the Tribunal is on high side and the same is required to be reduced considerably. He would also contend that the Tribunal has taken the entire salary of Rs.16,550/- without making any deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and therefore, the contribution of the deceased to the family is required to be reduced by taking into consideration of the income tax incidents. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the quantum of amount fixed by the Tribunal is not reasonable and the same is required to be enhanced from Rs.11,06,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submits that the deceased got future prospectus of promotion and the said future prospects were required to be taken into consideration while arriving his monthly earnings. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this appeal whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is fair and reasonable. Indisputably, the deceased was working as Principal in D.I.E.T college. Ex.A-4 is Xerox copy of the pay bill acquaintance. P.W.3 is the witness to speak about the earnings of the deceased. He testifies that the deceased was earning Rs.17,137/- per month. Out of Rs.17,137/- an amount of Rs.599/- is towards H.R.A. The learned Tribunal after deducting H.R.A amount has arrived monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.16,538/-. Of course, the learned Tribunal has not taken the income tax incidents. Be that as it may, the calculation of the earnings of the deceased basing on the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be found fault. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is proper. The quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, in our considered view, is fair and reasonable and the same is not required to be either enhanced or reduced. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:21.12.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3202 of 2005 Date:21.12.2010 Gk.