IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1741 of 2004 Between: APSRTCS, represented by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Kunta Bhagyalakshmi @ Yashoda and 4 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.134 of 2002, dated 03-03-2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Kunta Hanumantha Rao, aged about 36 years, was working as Fitter in South Central Railway earning Rs.10,500/- per month on which his wife, three minor daughters and mother were solely dependent. Hanumantha Rao was going on his cycle on 10-06- 2002 at about 9-15 P.M. towards Bowenpally and near Cantonment Check Post, an APSRTC bus, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed him from behind. Hanumantha Rao died on the spot and hence, the dependents claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the owner of the bus-APSRTC. The Corporation denied the claim contending that the driver of the bus was not rash or negligent in driving the vehicle and when the driver started the bus at the junction after seeing the green signal, the cyclist tried to go in between the bus and divider on wrong side and was responsible for the unfortunate incident causing the accident. The traffic signals made it a must for the bus to move very slowly at the scene of accident, and hence, the speculative compensation claimed cannot be granted. The Tribunal framed issues about the rash and negligent driving of the bus causing the accident and the amount of compensation, which the claimants can claim. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 during trial. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of PW.2-the eye-witness, the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-charge sheet, Ex.A.3-inquest report and Ex.A.5-Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal referred to Ex.B.1-Rough Sketch of the scene of the accident and also the suggestions made to PW.2 and rejecting the contentions that at the scene of the accident, the bus could not have been driven rashly and negligently, the Tribunal also concluded from Ex.A.2-charge sheet that it was clearly indicated that the investigation made into the incident revealed the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. In calculating the compensation payable, the Tribunal referred to Ex.A.6-Salary Certificate and Ex.A.7-Service Certificate and noted that Rs.8,857/- was the gross salary, while Rs.6,031/- was the net salary and the claim of PW.1 that the deceased Hanumantha Rao became a foreman and had he continued in service, he would have further progressed in his career. The age of the deceased was taken as about 40 years by the time of his death based on the medical evidence and the income of the deceased for the purpose of the compensation was taken at Rs.9,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd out of such income, the loss of dependency at Rs.6,000/- per month was arrived at with reference to the multiplier 12.79 and apart from the said sum of Rs.9,20,000/-, the Tribunal also considered it appropriate to grant Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards shock and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total compensation of Rs.9,70,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal also gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The Corporation challenged the said award in this appeal contending that there was no possibility at the scene of the accident for any vehicle going in high speed and the cycle of the deceased, which was on the back side adjacent to the road divider, suddenly came across the bus and there was no dashing of the cycle by the bus. PW.2, who was on duty in Jubliee bus stand check post, could not have witnessed the incident. The Corporation also claimed that only the net salary of Rs.6,031/- should have been taken into account for assessing the compensation. The Corporation, therefore, desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri Akkam Eswar, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. The points, which arise again for consideration in this appeal, are about the responsibility for the accident and the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The Corporation had not chosen to examine the driver or the conductor or any other passenger of the ill-fated bus to support its contentions about practical impossibility of the bus going in culpable speed at the scene of the accident. The sketch of the scene-Ex.B.1 by itself cannot be a probablising factor in respect of any fact and the Tribunal had discussed the issue in depth in the impugned award. The Tribunal rightly stated that independent investigation by the statutory investigating agency resulting in Ex.A.2-charge sheet showed the bus to have been driven rashly and negligently by its driver and the Motor Vehicles Inspector stated in Ex.A.5 that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the bus. The earliest version in Ex.A.1- First Information Report also is to the same effect and the opinion of the independent mediators in Ex.A.3-inquest report is no different. Even assuming that the scene of the accident was very near the junction and the bus was moving immediately on the green light being flashed at the junction, still it is well settled that in assessing the rashness and negligence in driving, the mere velocity of the vehicle alone is not a safe guide. Even a lesser speed might still be rash and negligent in a given situation, while even a higher speed, for example on a four lane or eight lane National High way with no traffic coming in the opposite direction, might not have been construed as rash or negligent. There is nothing on record to show that either the physical features at the location or any other facts and circumstances clearly exclude the possibility of any rashness or negligence in driving the bus. The deceased cyclist himself coming in between the road divider and the bus negligently and practically committing suicide by lying underneath the bus does not appear an acceptable proposition under the circumstances. If so, the vicarious liability of the Corporation for the tortious act of the driver for justly and adequately compensating the dependents of the claimant cannot be in question. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased taken at 40 years is not shown to be incorrect and in fact the date of birth of the deceased was recorded in the service record as 4-2-1962 to doubt which there is no reason. The Tribunal took into account only the multiplier 12.79 as per the then precedent in vogue, but if it were to be calculated with reference to Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the multiplier would have been much higher and the deduction would have been only at 1/4th, the number of dependents being 5. Even in respect of the assessment of the income by the Tribunal, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.8,857/- as per the Salary Certificate though after deductions the net salary was only Rs.6,031/-. But, the deductions were not shown to be such as should be considered to be excludable for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Even otherwise, the deceased was working as Fitter in South Central Railway, which employment is obviously permanent and if so, as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) there should be an addition to his income for the purpose of assessing compensation at 50% of his actual salary for his age as a rule of thumb. But, the Tribunal had not in fact taken any such prospects in his career into account in assessing the compensation. The assessment of the compensation on a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- is only a marginal increase over the actual gross salary the deceased was receiving by the time of his death and therefore, the quantum of the loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal is in fact much less than what the claimants would have got had the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra) been followed. It is true that in granting other heads of damages towards loss of consortium, shock and mental agony, funeral charges, transport charges, loss of estate and loss of love and affection, the Tribunal appeared to be little liberal in granting a total sum of Rs.50,000/- under these heads, but, any higher sum granted thereunder will be much less than what was deprived to the claimants in assessing the loss of dependency at a lower level and therefore, at this distance of time, the amount awarded needs no interference. However, coming to the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9%, it should be remembered that the appellant is a public Corporation and is a custodian of public interest and public funds and taking into account the liability to pay such interest on the compensation from the date of petition till deposit or payment, the same can be reduced to a reasonable level. The grant of interest by superior courts in or around the relevant time varied between 6% and 7.5% p.a. mostly and the interest can, therefore, be reasonably restricted to 7.5%. In the result, the award dated 03-03-2004 in O.P.No.134 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is modified only to the extent of restricting the rate of interest to 7.5% p.a., but otherwise confirmed in all other respects. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly ordered without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-10-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298