HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2812 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.8.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 860 of 2004 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one T. Peddi Raju @ Peddulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.2.2004 at about 1340 hours when the deceased was taking passengers in his Autorickshaw bearing No. AP 36T/30 from Jangaon to Narayanapuram Village, RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z /3448 of the respondent Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver hit the Autotickshaw and due to which, the auto turned turtle and the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The respondent-Corporation field its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing registration No. AP-10Z/3448 by its driver belonging to the respondent-Corporation and therefore, it is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Corporation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs. 4,40,000/- which is high, excessive and exorbitant disbelieving the evidence of the driver of the bus who was examined as RW-1 stating that there was no negligence on his part. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month without any support of credentials to prove the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 16.2.2004 at about 1340 hours when the deceased was taking passengers in his Autorickshaw bearing No. AP 36T/30 from Jangaon to Narayanapuram Village, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z /3448 came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver hit the Autotickshaw and due to which, the auto turned turtle and the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence on record that the deceased used to earn monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- by driving the auto and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, assessed the contribution to the family at Rs. 24,000/- and applied the relevant multiplier 17 for age of 25 years and calculated the compensation at Rs. 4,08,000/-. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus the total amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- granted by the Tribunal along with interest at 7.5% per annum. 7. In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed. But however, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA