THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2936 of 2003 Dated 20th January, 2011 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Depot Manager, Vizianagaram and other …Appellants And Maradana Gowri and others …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Appaiah Sarma, standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the award dated 31.03.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the O.P. are the appellants in this C.M.A. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the legal heirs of one Maradana Apparao filed the above noted O.P. claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- for the death of the deceased. The Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 9Z 4360 by its driver, who is the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from any of the respondents, if so to what extent? 3. To what reliefs?” As the accident, which had occurred on 06.01.2000 involving the bus belonging to the appellants and driven by respondent No.3 herein, resulted in as many as three deaths, three separate O.Ps. were filed by the legal heirs of each of the deceased. O.P.No.175 of 2000 out of which the present C.M.A. arises was clubbed along with O.P.No.138 of 2000. In both these O.Ps., the passengers travelling in the auto died in the accident. O.P.No.793 of 2001 was filed by the legal heirs of the owner-cum-driver of the auto. Today, this Court dismissed C.M.A.No.2934 of 2003 arising out of the said O.P. confirming the award made by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioners in the said O.P. As regards the O.P. out of which the present C.M.A. arises, on issue No.1, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the auto, who was driving the auto at the time of the accident. On issue No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed that the deceased, who was aged thirty years, was attending to agriculture works and earning Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day. In the absence of documentary evidence adduced in support of this plea, the Tribunal presumed that the deceased must have been contributing Rs.834/- to the family and accordingly arrived at Rs.10,008/- as annual contribution and rounded off the same to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of ‘16’ to arrive at the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of dependency apart from awarding Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and in total awarded Rs.1,70,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. At the hearing, Sri Appaiah Sarma, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the appellants, has contended that the findings of the Tribunal on both the issues cannot be sustained. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed this contention and submitted that the evidence on record clearly showed that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is too meagre to warrant interference of this Court. With regard to the findings of the Tribunal regarding issue No.1, the Tribunal relied on Ex.A1 - F.I.R, Ex.A3 - the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report and Ex.A4 - charge sheet apartfrom relying on the evidence of P.W.2 in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the offending bus. The learned standing counsel is unable to point out any flaw in the reasoning of the Tribunal in arriving at this conclusion. It is to be noted that C.M.A.No.2934 of 2003 was dismissed by this Court today confirming the award of the Tribunal. As the accident is common, the reasons assigned by this Court in C.M.A.No.2934 of 2003 shall hold good in this case as well. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, according to the evidence P.W.1 – wife of the deceased, the deceased used to attend agricultural works and earn Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day. He was aged 30 years. The Tribunal has taken Rs.834/- per month as the deceased’s contribution to his family from out of his income and the multiplier of ‘16’. Even adopting the most stringent view, the estimate of Rs.1,000/- in the absence of any evidence cannot be stated to be on a high side. On an overall consideration of the entire case, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal is completely justifiable and the same does not warrant any interference. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed without costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim stay granted on 13.08.2003 in C.M.P.No.17721 of 2003 as made absolute on 16.07.2003 in C.M.P.No.12209 of 2004 is vacated and C.M.P.Nos.17721 of 2003 and 12209 of 2004 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 GHN