IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1650 of 2005 Between: Tanamala Sarojanamma .. Appellant AND A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & 3 others .. Respondents AND M.A.C.M.A.No.1880 of 2005 Between: A.P. State Road Transport Corporation .. Appellant AND Tanamala Sarojanamma & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1650 of 2005 and 1880 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the award in O.P.No.185 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, dated 20.04.2005. 2. Tanamala Masthan Reddy along with B. Raja Reddy was going on cycle on 20.08.2000 at about 7.20 p.m. on G.N.T. Road and near Holy Cross School Centre, at Sullurpet, RTC bus No.A.P.10/Z-7489, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the cycle resulting in the death of Masthan Reddy due to multiple injuries, while being shifted to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Masthan Reddy owned Ac.3.50 cents of agricultural land and was also cultivating Ac.10.00 of land on lease. He was earning Rs.3,50,000/- per year and his second wife filed the claim for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus, and prayed for the compensation to be granted to her, two sons of Masthan Reddy and mother of Masthan Reddy, impleaded as respondents 2 to 4. 3. The corporation did not admit the allegations of the claimant and contended that the deceased himself, in a state of confusion, hit the bus and, hence, the corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The second respondent claimed half share out of the compensation as the son of the first wife of the deceased. While the son of the claimant, impleaded as the third respondent, remained ex parte, the mother, impleaded as the 4th respondent, also claimed a share in the compensation as she was wholly dependent on the deceased and had no properties. 5. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eye witness, P.W.2, corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-4-Charge Sheet to conclude that the bus was driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident and death of Masthan Reddy. The evidence of the bus driver as R.W.1 was not accepted as the driver admitted being subjected to prosecution and departmental enquiry. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation with reference to the age of the deceased as about 55 years and discussing the principles governing the grant and assessment of compensation, the Tribunal took the probable earnings of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any definite documentary evidence about the extent of such income and taking into account the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the occupation of the deceased. The Tribunal considered the claimant, the son through the first wife and the mother to be the persons entitled to the compensation and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it assessed the loss of dependency on an annual sum of Rs.24,000/- at Rs.2,40,000/- and further awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation of Rs.2,44,500/- was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and while awarding Rs.40,000/- to the 4th respondent, the mother, and Rs.4,500/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses to the wife, the claimant, the remaining sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be apportioned between the claimant and the second respondent. 7. The corporation challenged the said award in M.A.C.M.A.No.1880 of 2005 contending that the evidence of R.W.1, the bus driver, could have been accepted to conclude the deceased alone to be responsible for the accident, more so, when P.Ws.1 and 2 were interested witnesses. Fixation of monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- without any evidence was an error apart from application of an excessive multiplier and, hence, the corporation desired the impugned award to be reversed. 8. The claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1650 of 2005 contending that loss of consortium and loss of estate should have been granted apart from denying any compensation to the second respondent who is an Officer in a nationalized bank and was not dependent on the deceased. The apportionment of compensation was incorrect and the entire compensation should have been granted to the wife alone as even the mother was staying only with the daughters since more than 30 years apart from possessing land and house property. She, therefore, desired the compensation to be enhanced and to be granted to her alone. 9. Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant, Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for the corporation are heard. 10. The points that arise for consideration are firstly about the responsibility for the accident, secondly about the quantum of just and adequate compensation and thirdly about the manner of apportionment between the dependents of the deceased. 11. Concerning the first question, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 admitted being prosecuted and his claim that the criminal case ended in acquittal is not corroborated by the production of the judgment of the criminal Court. The driver also admitted that he was not sanctioned increments due to the departmental enquiry and if the evidence of P.W.1 was tainted with interestedness, the evidence of R.W.1 was also of the same nature. P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer, was an independent witness whose version right from Ex.A-1-First Information Report was consistent and he specifically denied the deceased himself dashing against a stationed bus. The Statutory Investigating Agency found, after independent investigation, that the bus driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving leading to the accident and on the basis of broad human probabilities arising out of such evidence on record, further corroborated by the opinion of the independent mediators for the Inquest Report-Ex.A-2, the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident cannot be considered to be unreasonable or perverse, more so, when Ex.A-5-Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report does not indicate the accident to be due to any mechanical defect in the bus. 12. That leads to the assessment of just and adequate compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased. P.W.1 positively stated about the deceased being an Ex-Sarpanch doing civil contract works in the Panchayat Raj Department and cultivating Ac.3.50 cents of land owned and Ac.10.00 of land taken on lease by him by the time of his death. Even assuming that her assessment of the deceased’s annual income at Rs.5,50,000/- would have been naturally exaggerated with a view to get a higher compensation, the cross-examination on behalf of the corporation did not elicit any circumstances to doubt the claims of P.W.1 about the occupation of the deceased which claims were corroborated by the Village Administrative Officer as P.W.2. That the deceased would have occupied himself in some gainful avocation to maintain himself and his family can be a matter of natural inference and even if the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at about that time were to be taken as the guiding factor, an Agriculturist said to be cultivating Ac.13.50 cents of land and to be also engaged in executing civil contract works for the Panchayat Raj Department being assessed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month is conservative and not liberal. If the Tribunal, in its experience and wisdom, had assessed the income at such a reasonable scale, there cannot be an occasion for this Court to intervene in such assessment in the absence of any strong material on record to the contrary. The deceased, according to the claim, left behind four dependents and as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[1] in such an event, a deduction towards the probable personal expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive may be confined to 1/4th of the assessed income. If so, the loss of dependency of the dependents would come to Rs.2,250/- per month or Rs.27,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was rightly taken by the Tribunal as 55 years as assessed by the Medical Expert in the Post Mortem Report and the independent mediators in the Inquest Report in the absence of any other material and in the absence of any specific indication of his completing or not completing the age of 55 years, the suitable multiplier applicable can be taken as 10 as a via media, below 11 applicable to persons of the age of 51 to 55 years and above 9 applicable to the persons of the age of 56 to 60 years as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra1). The loss of dependency for the dependents of the deceased, therefore, comes to Rs.2,70,000/- and the decision in SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) also laid down that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. That should take the total compensation payable to Rs.2,90,000/- by way of upward revision to that extent. The interest directed to be paid on the compensation was 9% per annum, but taking into account the rate of interest normally allowed by precedents at about the relevant time confining such future interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization will also be in tune with the respondent corporation also being a custodian of public funds and keeping in view the length of time for which such interest has to be paid. 13. Coming to the apportionment of the compensation so awarded, Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant has stated that the 4th respondent, mother, had already withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the impugned award and she is no more. The balance of compensation payable will be Rs.2,50,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium should go to the wife alone. Out of the remaining sum, the claim of the wife that the son through the first wife is not entitled to any share in the compensation as he is an Officer in a nationalized bank cannot be heard at the stage of appeal when the claimant herself had applied for grant of compensation in favour of not only herself, but also the son through the first wife, her own son and the mother of the deceased. Apart from the second respondent filing a counter claiming half share in the compensation as the sole legal heir of the first wife, there was no evidence on record to conclude that the second respondent cannot be considered to be a dependent on the deceased and was not receiving any assistance from the father during his lifetime. While the third respondent, the son of the second wife, remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the denial of any share in the compensation to him by the impugned award was not challenged by him in any manner and there is no reason to disturb the same in appeal when even the mother in her appeal did not question the refusal of any compensation to the third respondent by the impugned award. 14. Coming to the apportionment of the compensation between the second wife and the first wife’s son, it is seen that the claimant is said to be a house wife then aged 45 years and it is not shown that she had any substantial means of maintaining herself. The second respondent, irrespective of his employment and income, should be considered to be earning for himself reasonably being admittedly an able-bodied young person and the interests of justice would be better served if the compensation, including the amount of funeral expenses and loss of estate, is divided between the claimant and the second respondent at 2/3rd and 1/3rd of Rs.2,40,000/-. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. 15. In the result, the award, dated 20.04.2005, in O.P.No.185 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The 4th respondent is entitled to Rs.40,000/- out of the said compensation, whereas the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,70,000/- and the second respondent is entitled to Rs.80,000/- out of the said compensation. No further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding the disbursement of the compensation. M.A.C.M.A.No.1650 of 2005 is allowed in part accordingly and M.A.C.M.A.No.1880 of 2005 is dismissed and the parties shall bear their own costs in both the appeals. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1650 of 2005 and 1880 of 2005 Date: 12th September, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298