HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.NO.2339 OF 2002 Dt.8.7.2010 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its General Manager, Hyderabad. ..Appellant And Jandhyam Babu and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.NO.2339 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No.405 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 16.4.2002. Appellant herein is the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (RTC). Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants and they are parents of one Uma Chakradhar, who is said to have been working as motor mechanic. On 1.10.1999 while the said Uma Chakradhar along with his friend went to Allavaram on his work and when they reached near market center in Allavaram on his Moped, the bus bearing No.TN 07 N-9196, which was owned by the 4th respondent herein and hired by the RTC plying between Mummidivaram and Komaragiripatnam via Amalapuram, which was driven by the 3rd respondent herein, came in opposite direction dashed the Moped on which the deceased and his friend were going slowly, as a result of which he received grievous injuries and the bus was ran over his right leg. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Amalapuram and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. It is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly they have claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The RTC filed counter admitting that the accident was occurred on 1.10.1999 and the offending vehicle was owned by the 4th respondent herein, which was driven by the 3rd respondent herein, but denied negligence on the part of its driver and stated that the accident occurred due to lack of road sense and rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased himself. RTC also admitted that the said vehicle was hired by it from the 3rd respondent. But, as per the agreement, the owner alone is liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- is high and exorbitant. The 5th respondent insurance company filed a counter disputing the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and the income of the deceased as well as the dependency of the claimants. Before the Court below the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the matter was contested by the RTC as well as insurance company alone. The 1st petitioner i.e., the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. He stated that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day and used to contribute the same for family maintenance and the deceased was aged 22 years on the date of the accident and he was only the bread winner of their family, as the other son is not looking after them as he was already married. P.W.2 is the resident of Kakinada and eyewitness to the accident. He stated that the deceased was a motor mechanic and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus when the deceased was returning to Kakinada. It is stated that the Moped driven by the deceased was in good condition and there was no fault on his part. The Superintendent of RTC was examined as R.W.1. He stated that the offending vehicle was hired by the RTC and as per hire agreement RTC is not liable for payment of compensation and the owner of the vehicle is only liable. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said bus. In so far as the said finding is concerned, it is not in dispute as no ground is taken by the RTC in this appeal with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. But, the appellant only disputes its liability for payment of compensation and also about the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether the owner of the vehicle and insurance company are liable for payment of compensation, but not the RTC. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, P.W.1, the father of the deceased stated that the deceased being a motor mechanic used to earn Rs.150/- per day. But the Tribunal had taken Rs.50/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure applied multiplier 15, as the deceased was aged 22 years, granted the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- apart from Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and thus granted a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. The age of mother of the deceased was 40 years. The appropriate multiplier up to the age of 40 is 16. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly taken 15 as appropriate multiplier and rightly held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.1,90,000/-. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction of 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. In so far as liability on the part of the RTC is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the agreement RTC entered into with owner of the bus, owner alone was liable to pay compensation in case of accidents and relied on the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2154 2001, dated 18.6.2009, wherein it was held as under: “The question whether RTC would be liable to pay compensation on account of death of person involving a vehicle under hire to RTC is no more res integra. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari (AIR 1997 SC 3444), National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepa Devi (2008 ACJ 705 (SC) and Godavari Finance Company v. Degala Satyanarayanamma (2008 ACJ 1612 (SC)), it has been held that when a private bus is under hire of RTC it is alone responsible to pay the compensation, because the driver of the bus is required to work under the control of RTC and also adhere to schedule as fixed by RTC. In view of this, even if there is any agreement between the parties and owner the same is not of any help to RTC. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Labbipet v. Javvaji Bhaskar Rao.” The Tribunal below dismissed the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. This Court by order, dated 23.4.2008, dismissed the appeal against the owner of the bus. In view of the above, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 8% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 8.7.2010 kpr [1] 2009 ACJ 1298