IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3502 OF 2003 Between : The A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad and another. .... APPELLANTS A N D Sakkubai @ Yellamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3502 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., against the Order and decree in O.P.No.1563 of 2000, dated 29.04.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased Kistaiah. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 12-08-2000 at about 3.10 P.M., when the deceased Kistaiah was going by walk, R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10-Z-1766 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, causing his death. Therefore, the claimants, who are wife and children of the deceased, filed O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a Kamati in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and getting a monthly salary of Rs.4,900/-. 4. Respondents filed counter denying the claim averments of the O.P. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident on 12.08.2000 was due to rash and negligent driving of R.T.C. bus resulting in death of deceased Kistaiah? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 6. To substantiate their case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and also examined P.W.2 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. By applying the multiplier ‘15’, the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- but, since the claimants filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only; the compensation amount was restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the respondents filed the present appeal. 8. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier ‘15’; that the income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that in fact the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,44,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,00,000/- only, in view of the fact that the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 11. There is no dispute that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.4,900/- per month and was aged about 42 years. The claimants filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The deceased was aged about 42 years. Even applying multiplier ‘12’ also, as approximate age of the deceased is taken to be 42 years, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, salary Rs.4900-1633(1/3rd ) = 3267 x 12 (annual) = Rs.39,204/- x 12 (multiplier) Rs.4,70,448/- plus non pecuniary damages and amount to be added towards future enhancement of emoluments. 12. Coming to the question of interest, though in the grounds of appeal no such ground is raised as it is only a legal question. I am inclined to consider the same. Considering the latest legal position, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5 % per annum. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum, while confirming the quantum of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. YVL