IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.160 of 2005 & 1850 of 2005 Between: The General Manager, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Adilaxmi and 8 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the award in O.P.No.191 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 8- 10-2003. Begam Chennaiah, a fitter in South Central Railway, was going on a cycle on 22-12-1995 at about 9.00 P.M. and near Chilakaguda cross road, RTC Bus No.AAZ-9306, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, hit Chennaiah. Though he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, he died on the same night while undergoing treatment and Chilakaguda police registered Crime No.335 of 1995 against the bus driver. Chennaiah was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,447-60 ps. contributed entirely to the family and his wife, five minor children, parents and unmarried minor sister sought for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from APSRTC, the owner of the bus. The Corporation contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and contending that the bus was driven very slowly and carefully and that the death and pensionary benefits received by the family have to be deducted from the claimed amount. The claim was contested as excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal framed issues about the rash and negligent driving of the bus leading to the accident and death of Begam Chennaiah and the question of entitlement of the claimants to compensation including the quantum and from whom. During the enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly referring to Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.2-charge sheet, Ex.A.3- autopsy report, Ex.A.4-M.V. Inspector’s report and Ex.A.5-inquest report to note that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the bus and the earliest version alleged the bus to have hit the deceased from behind, while he was going on the cycle. The Tribunal also noted the bus driver to have been prosecuted for negligent driving under Ex.A.2 by the statutory investigating agency, though PW.2 himself did not speak about witnessing the manner of accident. The Tribunal analyzing the evidence of RW.1- driver of the bus noted that his evidence did not give any clue as to the contributory negligence of the deceased and it was never alleged earlier that the cyclist hit the bus. The Tribunal refused to place any reliance on the claims of RW.1 and held the accident to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. With reference to Ex.A.6-Pay slip and the age of the deceased as mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.5, the Tribunal considered the deceased to be aged between 35 and 41 years and applied a multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act deducting 1/3rd of the salary towards personal expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. Apart from Rs.4,13,820/- assessed as the loss of dependency, Rs.2,500/- each were granted towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The total compensation of Rs.4,21,320/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and the Tribunal further directed the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The Corporation preferred MACMANo.160 of 2005 against the said award contending that the application of sudden brakes by the driver of the bus on seeing the passage of a lorry and other vehicles and the deceased cyclist dashing against the bus from behind should have been accepted and the accident should have been concluded to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the cycle by the deceased. While PW.2 did not see the accident personally and there was no other evidence, it is the evidence of RW.1 and not Ex.A.1 or Ex.A.2 that should have been accepted and the alleged employment in the South Central Railway or the monthly salary were also not duly proved. The Corporation, therefore, desired the award to be reversed. The claimants in MACMA.No.1850 of 2005 requested for grant of remaining compensation claimed by them also contending that seven dependents of the deceased should have been compensated keeping in view the balance of service of 27 years, which ought to have been considered while granting compensation. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.160 of 2005 and Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants in MACMANo.1850 of 2005 are heard. The points for consideration in these appeals are, firstly about the responsibility for the accident and nextly about the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. It is true that PW.2 at whose instance the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, was recorded deposed before the Tribunal about his actually not witnessing the manner in which the deceased was hit, while PW.1, the wife of the deceased, was admittedly not an eye-witness to the accident. However, even from the evidence of PW.2, it is seen that it was due to an accident involving the RTC bus that the deceased received multiple injuries and was lying on the road. The earliest version given by PW.2 in Ex.A.1-First Information Report stated that the bus driven rashly and negligently dashed the deceased going on a cycle on which he fell on the road on receiving injuries. The First Information Report was registered in less than two hours after the accident and even assuming that the statements of PW.2 in Ex.A.1 were not based on any personal knowledge, they can even be inferred to be on the basis of the version of the passers by on the road, who might have witnessed the incident. Even assuming that Ex.A.1 deserves no reliance at all, Ex.A.2-charge sheet contains the result of independent investigation by the statutory investigating agency and during course of their investigation, they have also examined another eye-witness Sri B. Pentaiah apart from the conductor of the vehicle himself to speak about the manner of accident. The accident being not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle has been certified by the Motor Vehicles Inspector in Ex.A.4 and the independent inquest mediators opined in Ex.A.5 about the probability of the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the accident. The police during investigation also examined the mediators for the scene of offence, the medical officer, who conducted inquest, and others and the conclusions of the investigating officer in the charge sheet about the driver being guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code can thus be considered to be based on dependable material collected during the investigation. As opposed to this is the evidence of the bus driver himself as RW.1 whose evidence has no independent corroboration and which evidence is necessarily tainted with interestedness and is not open to acceptance at face value without specific corroboration. RW.1 even in his chief-examination was clear that it was only when the passengers in the bus raised a hue and cry and told him that one cyclist hit the rear of the bus from behind and fell down that he got down, went and saw the cyclist falling down on the road with bleeding injury on the head. The manner in which the cyclist came into physical contact with the bus and sustained a bleeding injury on the head leading to his fall was not witnessed by RW.1 on his own version and if the incident speaks for itself, the very manner in which the deceased suffered fatal injuries could not have been possible in the ordinary and natural course of human events by a cyclist hitting a bus, unless it was vice versa. The result of the prosecution launched under Ex.A.2 against RW.1 was not known and under the circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal about the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record indicating the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus cannot be considered to be unreasonable and the said finding is not open to interference in the appeal in the absence of any strong and convincing reasons. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, the deceased being an employee of South Central Railway getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,447/- has been probablised by Ex.A.6-pay slip, the genuineness of which is not in dispute, though it should also be noted that Ex.A.6-does not indicate whether he was a permanent employee of the South Central Railway or not. The other oral and documentary evidence on record also throws no light on the permanent or temporary status in his job in South Central Railway and therefore, while it may not be possible to consider any escalation of the present income on the ground of future prospects, the salary itself should form the basis for assessing the compensation. The age of the deceased was stated in Ex.A.3-Post Mortem certificate to be about 35 years while in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, it was stated to be 38 years. In the absence of any other material, the assessment by the medical expert of the age can be safely relied on, when the independent inquest mediators also assessed the age of the deceased to be the same. But, in the absence of any definite material, he should be considered to have not completed the age of 35 years for the purpose of assessment of the compensation. As per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] when the dependents are more than six, the deduction to be made towards probable expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, should be only 1/5th of the assessed income and if so, the amount to be deducted towards the same should be Rs.690/- out of Rs.3,447/- monthly salary. That leaves a balance of Rs.2,758/- or Rs.33,096/- per year and the appropriate multiplier applicable to a person of the age of 35 years is 16 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra). The total loss of dependency thus comes to Rs.5,29,536/- . In addition to this, the claimants will also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and the wife will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants would have been thus entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,49,536/- as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra). However, the claim of the claimants before the Tribunal and in their appeal MACMA No.1850 of 2005 was only for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the appeal being valued at Rs.78,680/- for the balance of the compensation claimed than that awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, it will be suffice to restrict the enhancement of the compensation to that sum and keeping in view that the Corporation is a custodian of public funds and in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the compensation, the interest on the compensation being enhanced can be limited to 6% p.a., while the interest already awarded at 9% p.a. on the compensation granted by the Tribunal need not be disturbed at this distance of time, when it is not shown to be in deviation of the then prevailing rate of interest. Accordingly, the award dated 8-10-2003 in O.P.No.191 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.78,680/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The enhanced compensation with interest shall be apportioned between the claimants in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned and no further directions need be given at this distance of time concerning the disbursement of the compensation. MACMA.No.160 of 2005 is dismissed and MACMA.No.1850 of 2005 is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-09-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298