IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.5522 of 2008 Dated:17-11-2011 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another. ….Appellant. And Smt I.Nagamani. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.5522 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.174 of 2006 by the Chiarman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 14.08.2007. The petitioners, who are the wife, son and parents of the deceased Chandrasekhar has filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 29.10.2005 the deceased was traveling in the College bus bearing No.AP 11T 8888 and on the way, the RTC bus No.AP 11Z 4499 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake another vehicle, came to the wrong side of the road and collided with the college bus. As a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. Some other students and lecturers sustained injuries in the said accident. The appellant/RTC opposed the said application by filing counter pleading that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and negligence was on the part of the driver of the college bus, as such they are not liable to pay any compensation. The 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the college bus also filed counter pleading that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and he is not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company also filed counter pleading that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus, as such they are not liable to pay any compensation and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether Sri Inuguri Chandra Sekhar died on 29.10.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.AP 11Z 4499? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, against whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 and Exs.X.1 to X.3. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the college bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal by taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.2 eyewitness and documents Exs.A.1, F.I.R., Ex.A.3, scene of offence Panchanama arrived at the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving exclusively on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. Moreover, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the RTC to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the college bus. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal by taking into consideration of the salary certificate of the deceased Ex.A.12 arrived at the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.350/- towards taxes, taken the net salary as Rs.15,650/- and by taking into consideration of the future prospects of the deceased doubled the said amount and arrived at the monthly income at Rs.30,000/- and annual income at Rs.3,60,000/-. After deducting income tax at 25% arrived the net income as Rs.2,70,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses arrived at the net contribution to the family at Rs.1,80,000/- and by applying multiplier ‘17.40’ arrived at the compensable payable towards loss of dependency at Rs.31,32,000/- and since the claimants claimed only Rs.26,00,000/-, the said compensation was restricted to Rs.26,00,000/- . On behalf of the RTC, the learned standing counsel has pleaded that the Tribunal has committed an error in doubling the salary of the deceased for arriving at the loss of dependency of the claimants, as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced. The appellants’ counsel has not disputed about the Ex.A.12 salary certificate and as per Ex.A.12 the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.16,000/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.350/-, his net salary is Rs.l5,650/-. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration of the future prospects of the deceased, has doubled the said income. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, only 50% can be taken into consideration towards future prospects of the deceased since the deceased is aged about 27 years as on the date of his death. Thus, the total income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.15,650 + Rs.7,825 = Rs.23,475/- per month. Since there are 4 claimants, as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, the income comes to (Rs.23,475 – Rs.5,868) Rs.17,607/-. Since the age of the deceased is 27 years, the proper multiplier i.e. applicable as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) is ‘17’. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.17,607 X 12 X 17= Rs.35,91,828/-, which is far more than the amount arrived at by the Tribunal. Since the claimants have claimed only Rs.26,00,000/-, the Tribunal has rightly restricted the compensation to Rs.26,00,000/-. Hence there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:17-11-2011 Ksp