IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2489 OF 2006 Date:02.12.2009 Between:- The Managing Director, APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 And B.Nagamma and others .. Respondents/Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-VII Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. With the consent of learned counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the records. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased B.Sanjeeva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.11.2003. Claimant No.1 is the mother and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was going on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-29A-3583 at Bhagyalatha colony Bus Stop and at that time, a bus belonging to the appellants-Corporation dashed against the motor cycle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased and the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital where he died. A case in Cr.No.511 of 2003 was registered by Hayatnagar police against the driver of the bus. According to the claimants, the deceased was a professional and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and the appellants-Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A- 1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellants-Corporation. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said finding is not seriously disputed. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, an Award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Corporation. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. without any evidence in support thereof and the same has resulted in awarding excessive compensation. The evidence on record, particularly, the inquest report – Ex.A-2 would show that the deceased was washerman by profession. He was aged 23 years. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly taken the age of claimant No.1-mother of the deceased into consideration for estimating the loss of dependency. Claimant No.1 was aged 43 years and the Tribunal applied the multiplier “15” which is applicable as per the II Schedule. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. as per II Schedule instead of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The said notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. will be applicable incase of a non earning person. It is not the case of the claimants that the deceased was non-earning person. According to them, the deceased was a Washerman by profession and he was earning therefrom. The inquest report-Ex.A-2 also shows that the deceased was a washerman by profession. The question of taking notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a., as in the case of non earning person, does not arise in the present case, wherein the deceased is a earning person earning from the washing profession. The next question that would arise for consideration is as to the income the deceased was earning from the said profession. No doubt, the claimants have not adduced any documentary evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. from the washing profession. The Tribunal has, therefore, estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was young and able bodied and that he was pursuing the caste profession in the city of Hyderabad, the average daily income of the deceased was reasonably estimated at Rs.100/- per day by the Tribunal, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. It cannot be, therefore, said that the estimation of the income made by the Tribunal is on the higher side. After deducting 1/3rd thereof towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution towards his family at Rs.24,000/- p.a. and applied the multiplier “15” and the total amount towards loss of dependency came to Rs.3,60,000/- but however limited to Rs.3,00,000/-, which was claimed by the claimants. The impugned order does not, therefore, suffer from any irregularity and hence, does not call for any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 2nd December, 2009 AMD