IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2007 Between: The Managing Director, APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad Rep.by its Regional Manager ..... APPELLANT AND Smt.Thujapuram Balamani and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Heard both the counsel. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APSRTC”) filed this appeal against the order of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy passed in O.P.238/2006 dated 25.01.2007. The said OP was filed by the respondent herein who is the claimant before the Tribunal below. 3. The 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased Thujapuram Prasad and the Respondent No.2 is the minor daughter and Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Prasad. The claim petition was filed under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act claiming the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in all counts, contending that when the deceased Prasad was proceeding along with his bullock cart loaded with sugarcane to transport the same to Ganapathi sugars and was going on the left side of the road with other bullock carts, at about 6.30 a.m. when the cart reached near the Charminar Beer Factory in the limits of Shivampet, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10Z-807 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bullock cart of the deceased Prasad from its back. Due to which, the bullock cart was damaged and the sugarcane load was also damaged, the bulls as well as the deceased received multiple injuries. The injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sangareddy where he died while undergoing treatment. It is the case of the claimant that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus No.AP10Z-807 during course of his employment and therefore, the APSRTC is liable for payment of compensation. 4. In so far as the earnings are concerned, it is stated that the deceased was an agriculturist by profession and also running a bullock cart and ploughing the land of others on hire basis and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread winner and suffered great hardship and therefore, they have filed the claim petition. 5. A counter was filed by the APSRTC contending that the claim of Rs.5 lakhs is excessive and exorbitant and it also denied the claim particulars and the accident which is said to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 6. The wife of the deceased who is the 1st claimant was examined as PW 1 and she reiterated the contents what she stated in the OP. She further stated that the age of her husband was 26 years at the time of his death and he was hale and healthy person and he used to run the bullock cart on hire basis for transporting the sugarcane from various agriculturists to Ganesh sugar factory. He used to load one and half tons of sugarcane in his bullock cart and used to transport the same daily and used to get Rs.300/- per trip. The sugarcane season is six months and in that season he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month and thereafter also he used to do agriculture and on an average in all he used to get Rs.5,000/- per month on transportation of sugarcane as well as on agriculture. She filed Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest panchanama, Ex.A4 certified copy of the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A5 post mortem examination report and Ex.A6 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. In the cross examination, she admitted that she is not the eye witness of the incident and she did not file any document in proof of income of her husband. She denied the suggestion that she is aged about 30 years and her husband is aged about 35 years at the time of his death. She also denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning Rs.5,000/- per month. She also denied the suggestion that the claim is excessive and exorbitant. 7. PW 2 is the eye witness. He stated that he know the deceased Prasad. When the deceased Prasad and others were proceeding to Ganapathi Sugar Factory along with sugarcane load in bullock carts and when the bullock carts reached near Charminar Beer Factory at Shivampet, an APSRTC bus came behind the bullock cart of the deceased and dashed the bullock cart of the deceased, due to which the deceased Prasad received severe injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sangareddy in an Ambulance of the Beer Factory. The deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. PW 2 further stated that at the time of accident, he was behind the bullock carts. The cart of the deceased was damaged and bulls were also received severe injuries. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. In the cross examination PW 2 stated that while he was proceeding behind four bullock carts at the time of accident he witnessed the accident. It is stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. There was no negligence on the part of the deceased and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus alone. 8. As against the said evidence, the APSRTC did not examine any person and no document was filed to rebut the allegations or averments made or evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even according to PW 2, he was proceeding behind the four bullock carts and therefore, it cannot be said that he is not an eye witness. According to PW 2, it is stated that he was going behind the back of the four bullock carts and he was able to witness the incident which was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus alone and in fact, he took the injured to the hospital where the injured succumbed to injuries. 10. The complaint was given by the Sarpanch of Lingampally village. It is stated by him that the deceased who is the resident of Lingampally while transporting the load of sugarcane in his bullock carts, at about 6.30 a.m. when reached near Beer Factory, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10Z-807 came behind the back of bullock carts in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and hit the bullock cart of the deceased Prasad, by reason of which, the deceased Prasad sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. 11. According to Ex.A2 charge sheet also it is stated that the deceased died due to the accident caused by the driver of the APSRTC bus alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident was not established. PW 2 is an eye witness who is said to have been shifted the injured to the hospital and the sketch map shows that the bullock cart was going on the left side of the road only when the accident was occurred. As there were no rebuttal evidence adduced by the APSRTC, it cannot be said that PW 2 is not an eye witness. Admittedly, the Sarpanch of the village filed the complaint and the police after investigation filed the charge sheet, and the evidence of PW 2 corroborates with that of the FIR and charge sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 12. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal below rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 13. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of PW 1, the wife of the deceased as well as PW 2, the villager of the deceased, that the deceased Prasad used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. But the Court below, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly disbelieved the quantum of monthly income of the deceased @Rs.5,000/-, and rightly taken into consideration his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting one-third of monthly income towards contribution to his family, the monthly income of the deceased would comes to Rs.2,000/- per month alone. As the age of the deceased was recorded in the inquest panchanama and post mortem examination report as 26 years, the Tribunal below rightly took the multiplier as 17, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Board Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas[1] and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- In addition, the Tribunal below also granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and in all a total amount of Rs.4,38,000/- was awarded. 14. In view of the afore said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal below. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 17.06.2010 Dsr [1] AIR 1994 SC 1631