THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:2266 of 2006 And Cross-Objections (SR) No.47405 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1522 of 2002 by the Chairman, IIII Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the appellants/claimants filed Cross-Objections. 2. The claim petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Bhukya Hari @ Hari Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on 11.09.2001, when he was coming to Hanamkonda bus stand after completion of his work, to board the local bus to reach his village, the crime vehicle dashed against him and went away without stopping the same, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries all over the body. The persons, who saw the deceased, shifted aside the deceased. Because of several injuries, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The passengers and others failed to note the full number of the bus, they note only AP 9Z. The police, Hanmakonda Police Station, registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after conducting of postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the section of law was altered to Section 304 IPC. 3. The respondent-corporation filed counter denying the averments made in the petition regarding the occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, and the earnings of the deceased. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether accident occurred on 11.09.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. AP 9Z (bus) driven by its driver as per Section 166 of the Act ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, the Tribunal on Issue No.1 held that PW.1, who is the wife of the deceased, is not an eye witness to the occurrence. PW.2, who is the eyewitness, deposed that while he was entering into the bus-stand, he saw the crime bus coming in opposite direction and dashed against a person who was crossing the road, and that the said bus went away without stopping. Several persons gathered there and in the meanwhile the injured person died. In his cross-examination nothing contra has been elicited to disbelieve his testimony. PW.3-Doctor conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.A.3-P.M. certificate opining that the deceased appeared to have died due to multiple injuries due to road traffic accident. He also opined that there is no alcoholic contents in the stomach of the deceased. Further the alphabetical number of the crime vehicle is AP 9Z, which is the code allotted to APSRTC. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to road traffic accident and answered the issue in favour of the claimants. On Issue No.2 the Tribunal observed that as per the evidence on hand, the deceased was a mason and he was the only bread earning member of the family. According to the claimants, at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day. As there was no proof that the deceased was a mason and was earning Rs.150/- per day except the testimony of PWs.1 and 3, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Rs.50/- per day. Since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘17’ and awarded a sum of Rs.1,63,200/- towards loss of income, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant, Rs.5000/- each to the second and third claimants towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2000/- towards transport charges. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC filed the present appeal and the claimants filed the Cross- Objections. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR and inquest report would go to show that the deceased died due to consumption of alcohol and because of fall on the road and that there is no proof that the deceased received injuries because of the accident and died as such. He further contended that non-mention of number of the bus itself is clear that the deceased was not died due to accident. Hence he prays to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was a mason and used to earn Rs.150/- per day, and awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants. 9. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, who is an eyewitness, it is evident that while the deceased was crossing the road the crime bus dashed him and went away without stopping. As the deceased sustained several injuries, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. This witness was subjected to cross-examination, but nothing contra has been elicited to disprove his evidence. Therefore, there is no doubt that the deceased died due to the road traffic accident. Though RW.1 deposed that he was Station Manager and to his knowledge no accident was occurred during his tenure, but in view of the documentary proof, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Further, in the inquest mazahar it was stated that the deceased died because of consumption of alcohol. But as per the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.3-P.M. certificate, no alcoholic contents have been found in the stomach of the deceased. Hence the contents of inquest mazahar are not sustainable. It is also evident from the investigation that the alphabetic number of the crime vehicle was established since AP 9Z code was allotted to APSRTC only. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the road traffic accident and awarded just compensation to the claimants. 10. As far as the cross-objections are concerned, there is no sufficient evidence to the effect that the deceased was a mason and he was a skilled worker. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal rightly took the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and his age at the time of the accident as 30 years, and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1] by applying multiplier ‘17’ awarded the compensation, which in my considered view is reasonable and just compensation. In view of the same, I do not see any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross- Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129